Re: [ga] Advisory Concerning Unqualified .info "Sunrise" Registrations

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Ditto, for the WIPO or at least with WIPO consent. TM rights
over DNs are just for TMs in online service class.

Larger organizations than me having refused to register their
TM in the on-line service class what I did have more rights
on the internet than me. This is a blattant violation of the TM
rules. I certainly intent to make that clear to the IPC tomorrow
when talking with them.

My position as a candidate regarding the IPC issues are:

1. IPC should also include TM holders. Not only TM organizations
     and pros.

2. IPC should be adamant on the protection of the online class
     TMs as a priority to every other TM

3. UDRP should be a tool to remove user confusion not to settle
     disputes.

4. Pragamatic and fair solutions should be favored, such as
     calling on a randomly chosen wide user jury rather than on a
     single panelist. The size of the Jury (250 more accounting for
     the various languages and cultures). "famous" TLM would
     obviously be protected that way (I am sure that no jury would
     accept pepsi.info by CocaCola :-)

5. Realistic policy should be carried and TM protection should
     be discussed with every TLD Manager, including those the
     ICANN has not yet got the time to register.

6. Bold attitude should be developped over the defense of authoring
     rights preventing linking collisions over time: whan an author
     creates a link to a site, he is entitled to expect - and so are the
     readers too -  that in clicking that link the intended page will
     be displayed or absent. But not a page from another site.

7. UDRP should be possible on an informational/portection basis.
     I should be able to take an UDRP. If I am confirmed no one
     can UDRP me.

I would be interested in your support or suggestions.
Jefsey

On 06:41 15/08/01, William S. Lovell said:
>And thus, without any authority from any national or international
>body that has any legal competence to address the issue, ICANN
>is now determining the rights to domain names based on trademark
>law over which it likewise has no competence (in every sense of the
>word) or authority.
>
>Bill Lovell
>
>DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> > An ICANN advisory has been posted at:
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr14aug01.htm
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>--
>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
>possibly be explained at:
>"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
>GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
>http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html