Dear Robin Gross, Thanks! Then, why are you pointing at September version document of new gTLD introduction? NCUC position document contains the recently updated November version URL. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR-14Nov06.pdf Two version's languages are slightly different. At least, I confirmed that 2.5.2.1 sentence had changed. Then,is that Nov. version finally updated one? I have discovered the potential danger of that document language in the midst of GNSO IDN discussion. I fully agree to the idea of NCUC new release on this topic, and I will inform that issue in my country. And I think some additional problems regarding IDN TLD should be addressed together. best regards, Chun On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Robin Gross wrote: > As for an update on the new gTLD policy development process, its a > critical time. > > Some members of the task force and policy council will meet in LA next > week to discuss the draft final report on the policy recommendations for > the introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs). > (Unfortunately I won't be able to attend the LA meetings because I was > already ticketed to be in Bangalore on those dates). The new gTLD policy > is one of several issues that will be discussed at the LA meetings. > > I am currently drafting some "alternative language" that can be > introduced at this meeting to try to reform the existing draft > recommendations that are so restrictive of speech and are modeled on an > ancient trademark treaty. > > It is very possible that the GNSO Council will vote on the draft report > (& the alternative language) at the late March Lisbon Board meeting. So > we don't have a lot of time to garner support for reforming the > recommendations. But the current draft is so repugnantly censorious and > burdensome for ICANN that most are opposed to it - once they actually > hear what it proposes. So we as a constituency have to do a lot of > education and awareness raising on this issue. And I'm searching for > more volunteers to work on this policy development process. The > consequences of this policy are enormous for freedom of expression on > the Internet, so I'm a little puzzled why more haven't volunteered to > work on this issue yet. But now would be a most welcome time also. > > One idea is that the NCUC could issue a press release on the issue and > we could each work in our own corners of the globe to publicize the > issue with the press release and other efforts. What do others think? We > also need to emphasize that the GAC principles are not nearly as > restrictive as the draft recommendations, so arguments that "we have to > do this because the GAC wants it," simply aren't true. > > Here is more background: > > This is the website for the new gTLD policy development issue at ICANN: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ > > This is the draft policy that we want to change: > *WORKING DOCUMENT: DRAFT GNSO Recommendation Summary - Introduction of > New Generic Top-Level Domains > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/recom-summary-14sep06.htm>* (14 > September 2006) > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/recom-summary-14sep06.htm > > This is NCUC's position on the policy: > http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCUC_Comments_on_New_gTLDs.pdf > > another NCUC paper on the policy: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ncuc-01feb06.pdf > > Thanks! I look forward to hearing what other NCUC'ers think we should > do. And if anyone is willing to donate some energy to this issue in the > coming months, please let me know. > > Best, > Robin > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: robin, one question for new gTLD introduction > Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:42:36 +0900 > From: Chun Eung Hwi <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > To: [log in to unmask] > CC: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]> > > > > Dear Robin Gross, > Hell, I have met you last year at WIPO development agenda meeting place, > Geneva. > Do you remember me? 8-) > Although usually a silent observer in ncuc list, I want to ask you one > question on new gTLD. > Today, in GNSO IDN WG list, there was the following attached posting. > As you know, Mike Rodenbaugh's argument can be justified in GNSO draft > final report on new gTLD introduction. And I know you had already > submitted very beautiful NCUC position statement on that document. I > express my great thanks to you for that nice job here again. > Then, now where is that document? What's the status of that draft > document at present? What is the timeline for that? Is there any more > chance to modify that document? As NCUC, do we have any other means to > intervene with this issue except for just waiting for what will happen? > If possible, please reply to NCUC list. Now, I cannot access to my > subscribed account, and so using different email account. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Mike Rodenbaugh* <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Date: 2007. 2. 8 ¿ÀÀü 11:37 > Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Comments on notes of 30 Jan > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > There is no question, legally speaking, that trademark rights do give > rights to domain strings. The ICANN community seems to have reached > consensus as to that reality long ago, via adoption of sunrise > provisions as to strings that are identical to trademarks. Regardless, > UDRP and court decisions have held that passive registration of a > domain, preventing use by the trademark owner, can amount to bad faith > registration and trademark infringement. > > Furthermore, trademark owners can preclude the use of non-identical > strings when such use is likely to confuse consumers. Thousands of UDRP > decisions have found bad faith as to strings not identical to the > trademark in question. > > Typographical vs. Visual Confusion: > > It is only the end user perception that is relevant to the trademark > analysis, not the underlying punycode rendering. Yet, again there is no > question that trademark rights not only trump use of marks that "appear" > confusingly similar to the trademark, but also marks that "sound" > confusingly similar (Yahoo!, Yahu, Yahoux, Yawho) and marks that have > the same "meaning" (Yahoo! Mail and Yahoo! Correo (Spanish) are legally > equivalent for purposes of TM analysis). > > I appreciate Mawaki forwarding the string about 'typographical' > similarity and think that can be a useful distinction as opposed to > overall 'confusing similarity' which must also include the other two > types. I agree with Avri and others that it may be harder for a > registry to make discretionary decisions about phonetic similarity and > equivalence of 'meaning' than about typo similarity. > > However, businesses are concerned about all confusing similarities with > respect to their trademarks, since the law protects against all > confusing similarity in order to protect consumers. And the registry is > profiting from trademark infringement in any case of confusing > similarity. Therefore our policy work ought to consider all types, but > I think these issues may be better left to the new WG formed to address > IP protections in new TLDs. > > Mike Rodenbaugh > Sr. Legal Director > Yahoo! Inc. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > [mailto: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:18 PM > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Comments on notes of 30 Jan > > > > hi, > > Re: > > > 5.2 Support for a country's rights to define strings for the > > country name. Alternative view; to also accept a country's > > responsibility/right to approve any gTLD strings featuring its > > particular script, if unique for that country. Alternative view; to > > also acknowledge a country's right to influence the definitions/ > > tables of its scripts/languages. Alternative view; to require a > > country's support for a gTLD string in "its" script, in analogy > > with the issue of geo-political names. Ancillary view: recognition > > that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions. > > > I am pretty sure I expressed the view that no such right existed and > that ICANN defining any such right was inappropriate. > > a. > > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask] ------------------------------------------------------------