Re: [ga] Re: Dan Steinberg's report

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Dan,
Thx. for the report. Is there any international lawyer in the TF? I would 
be interested in having analysed the interest of TM holders of different 
countries in relation with their own legal, tax, business practices, etc... 
points of view. Myself for example - as a small French TM owner - I do not 
feel my interests protected by the ICANN strategy. And the more it goes the 
less it protects my interests.

If this is true for other countries as well, I am afraid that we see 
developped local DRPs conflicting with the UDRP. This may lead to a very 
complex situation when parties goes to courts. I am also very concerned by 
the situation created by the first nonUS gTLD as one of the reason for the 
Registrants to use it will precisely be that it will not be subject to US 
rules.

In a first stage TF might consider the UDRP flexibility to the DN concept 
variations. As no one has ever wanted to define the domain name as used in 
the UDRP, I think very important at this stage at least to evaluate how 
much the UDRP may adapt to various domain name legal defintions as local 
DRPs will define DN in different ways depending on countries.

Is anyone able to comment on the way ".us" is to build the USDRP? I 
understand that they are supposed to use the UDRP, but they will have to 
adapt to jurisprudence as any other ccTLD. Is there a guidance into the RFP?

Jefsey




On 15:47 16/09/01, Dan Steinberg said:
>Now that things have begun to settle a bit, I thought I would take the time
>to update the GA on what has been happening with the UDRP task force.
>
>The short answer is: not much.
>
>A closed working list was set up up shortly before the last ICANN meeting.
>There was some call for addition of civil lawyers to the task force to
>represent different perspectives.  I pointed out that although the concept
>of a 'civil lawyer' might be considered an oxymoron, the GA  already had the
>forsight to elect as their representative someone trained in civil law
>(moi).   At the ICANN meeting 2 additional geographic representatives were
>(unofficially) added to the task force.  These have to be ratified somehow
>(and I have no idea who has to ratify).  After that a few introductions were
>made, then the tragedy of last week hit. The working list has been pretty
>much silent.
>
>I will post relevant issues as they come up.
>
>A while ago, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > My apologies to all for not posting earlier. I have been away on
> > vacation with my children this past week. Indeed it was Ken Stubb's
> > message  of congratulations that was my first inkling I had been
> > elected.
> >
> > My thanks to those who voted for me and especially to those who recently
> >
> > spoke out on my behalf when some of the newer participants in the
> > process expressed doubts as to who I am.
> >
> > I still have a backlog of over 280 messages to get through  but I will
> > endeavor to add to this posting within 48 hours.
> >
> > Dan Steinberg
> >
> > SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
> > 35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
> > Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
> > J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
>
>--
>Dan Steinberg
>
>SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
>35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
>Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
>J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
>
>
>
>--
>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