NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:17:38 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (66 lines)
Hi Kathy,

Thanks for the feedback.  I wouldn't be terribly worried about this 
proposal if it was only the IP Constituency that was in favor of it.  
But I get the definite sense that it is ICANN staff who wants this PDP 
most of all.   

And actually this version is better than the version ICANN staff 
produced for us in LA to launch a PDP based on (which had replaced the 
"and" with "or" so only one element would need to be met before ICANN 
could take your domain away).

Unfortunately, despite all of the real and important work we have to do, 
we will have to also spend time and energy fighting this special 
interest proposal.

One thing is clear: ICANN is the ideal forum for these causes that can't 
win approval in a legitimate international treaty context.   Why bother 
with the difficulties of passing a treaty when one can easily get ICANN 
to make global policy?

Robin





[log in to unmask] wrote:

> Robin,
> Thanks for sharing the new Intellectual Property Constituency 
> proposal. It reminds me of a proposal a number of years ago by the 
> World Health Organization to "own" the names of major diseases and 
> medicines online in gTLDs.  The proposal was ridiculous, and we 
> blocked it quickly.
>  
> How seriously do you think ICANN will take the IPC proposal? 
> Kathy  
>
>     A new proposal from the Intellectual Property Constituency to
>     create new
>     rights for Inter-Governmental Organizations (like the World Trade
>     Organization) that do not exist in law. 
>
>     On a quick look, it appears that this proposal is (not surprisingly)
>     broad enough to be used to prevent WTO protesters and the like from
>     using the IGO's name or abbreviation in a domain name and thus
>     tarnish
>     the name of the IGO.
>
>     I guess ICANN doesn't have anything more important to do than create
>     special rights for the WTO to squelch criticism these days.
>
>     Robin
>
>  
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest products 
> <http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001> 
> and top money wasters 
> <http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002> 
> of 2007.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2