It's an interesting article... and one that gets many things right. But not a critical detail about the IP Clearinghouse. We/NCUC did object strongly to the IP Clearinghouse and have since the start. It is outside the scope and mission of ICANN, a technical body, to run a global, unprecedented and undefined intellectual property rights database. Konstantinos and I have done a lot on work on this, and on our concerns for how easily it can misused.

The solution is simple: have a few such Clearinghouses run **privately**. A Clearinghouse in each major region will understand the trademark laws of the countries (and their territorial and other limits) and easily operate in the language and scripts of the regional countries. Some private companies agreed with me (and approached me after my speech).

But the NY Times reporter stayed late at lunch, and came in after my speech and its opposition to the IP Clearinghouse - I saw him slip in a little later :-).
Best,
Kathy
[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 
There is another article, by the same writer Saul Hansell, who, incidentally, attended the NCUC breakfast, that specifically
addresses trademark concerns

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/


j


At 11:52 PM 7/14/2009, Robin Gross wrote:
  
Interesting post on the NY Times website today about how ICANN's new gtld rules are pricing small and medium sized businesses out of the market entirely.  So much for innovation and Internet start-ups.  Noncommercial entrants won't stand a chance of getting a new top level domain under ICANN's proposed rules and costs either.  Sigh.

Robin 



<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/?ref=technology>http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/the-best-internet-addresses-will-cost-a-cool-million/?ref=technology
    





Joly MacFie 
212 608 1334
http://wwwhatsup.com
http://punkcast.com  
http://pinstand.com