Re: [council] BACKGROUND ON NAMES COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 9: Proposal for an NC re port on TLDs and intellectual property

[Michael Schneider <sastre@anwalt.de>]

Roger,

I wholehartedly agree with you. You and our fellow NC colleagues know (and 
I tried to provide a more detailled explanation and analysis of our 
concerns in our response to the DNSO review) that the ISPCP has concerns 
that the NC may be taking too narrow a view of its responsibilities and be 
focusing too much on due process instead of substance anyway. If the NC is 
only taking a position on general questions, it invites the Board to make 
decisions on the basis of the general NC recommendations, but in other 
respects as it sees fit.

This said, the NC should make concrete proposals regarding the general 
conditions under which new gTLDs are to be selected and should not leave 
this entirely to the Board.

Regarding today's agenda, however, I feel we only could kick off the 
process rather than spontaneously developing suggestions.

Michael

At 17:30 18.10.00 -0400, Cochetti, Roger wrote:
>As you know, at the last Council meeting I requested that we place on the
>agenda for this meeting an item relating to the treatment of intellectual
>property in the context of the expansion of the top-level domain name space.
>We all know that Names Council Work Groups C and B discussed this topic
>extensively between 1999 and 2000 and that the Council acted on the matter
>in April ( http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html
>)and then again in May (
>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCftm-resolution.html ) of this
>year.
>
>Nonetheless, it would be difficult to say that the Council's contributions
>to this area have been either detailed or conclusive.  Moreover, since ICANN
>is currently actively considering proposals to expand the top-level name
>space, I believe that it is timely to consider perhaps one last time whether
>or not the Council can make a further contribution to this topic.  If it
>does not, then events are likely to overtake anything that the Council might
>do in this area.
>
>Accordingly, I have asked that the item be put on the agenda to determine
>whether there is interest in a new Council effort to address this important
>matter.  I would suggest, for example, that the Council could convene a
>workshop on the topic, to which a variety of diverse experts could be
>invited.   Such a workshop, which could be financed by participation fees,
>might well contribute to new, or more detailed, Council recommendations in
>this area.
>
>
>
>Roger J. Cochetti
>Senior Vice President-Policy
>VeriSign/Network Solutions, Inc.
>rogerc@netsol.com