Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Donna and all assembly members,

  Thank you so much for this automated "Broken Record" response,
I am sure all appreciate it immensely (Sarcasm intended here)

Austin, Donna wrote:

> Dear Mr Williams
>
> I apologise for the difficulties you have been experiencing in accessing the
> GAC website.  The Secretariat has been re-developing the site in recent
> times and this may have attributed to your inability to access the list of
> Accredited Representatives.  I have been able to access the site through
> your second link this morning which does provide details of Accredited
> Representatives.
>
> Should you continue to experience difficulties, could you please let me know
> and we will endeavour to fix the problem.
>
> Donna Austin
> GAC Secretariat
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Monday, 29 October 2001 9:05
> To: Alexander Svensson
> Cc: ga@dnso.org; Donna Austin; Karen Rose; Karl Auerbach; Don Evans;
> Phil Gramm; Kay Bailey Hutchison
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
>
> Alex and all assembly members,
>
>   The GAC web page is http://www.noie.gov.au
>   The contacts link for the GAC is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/contacts.htm
> Donna AUstin is the GAC Secretariat, which BTW is the only contact
> with and E-Mail address listed.  One wonders how stakeholders
> are to contact their GAC representative?
> The "Accredited Representatives" Contact link is:
> http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac
> representatives.htm
> Which is currently broken Message: "The parameter is incorrect." when
> trying to link the this page.
>
>   Given all this, one must also wonder if the GAC cannot maintain their
> Web pages and does not provide a E-Mail address contact for their
> "Accredited Representatives", than how the hell can they really be
> given the respect for their opinions by the stakeholders that they
> represent?
>
>   I also don't recall my GAC representative soliciting my opinion on any
> issue that effects me, nor can I presently provide any comments
> to MY GAC representative presently via E-Mail or any other
> form.  Could this be by design?  I hope not.
>
> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> > GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
> > 26 October 2001
> >
> http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oc
> t01.htm
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> > 1. Background and Introduction
> >
> > In August 2001, GAC became aware of anomalies in registration
> > practices during the .info sunrise period with respect to country
> > names. Accordingly, GAC in Montevideo considered the question and
> > published conclusions with respect to country names in its
> > Communiqué.[1] The ICANN Board supported the GAC recommendations
> > in principle and decided that such names should be registered by
> > the Registry to ICANN for the time being unless registered by a
> > valid trademark holder.[2] The Board has also initiated an Action
> > Plan to address other aspects of the issue and to report before
> > the March 2002 Accra meeting.[3]
> >
> > These recent developments have given rise to some discussion in
> > the ICANN Community, notably on the DNSO lists. The Names Council,
> > on 11 October 2001 adopted a Resolution about this.[4]
> >
> > GAC has comments and reservations about the Names Council
> > resolution. In the interests of a transparent and informed
> > discussion, and hopefully with a view to a resolution of any
> > outstanding difficulties, GAC submits this commentary for the
> > consideration of ICANN and all other parties concerned.
> >
> > GAC would also recall that this is not the first time that it has
> > addressed this issue. In its November 2000 Marina del Rey opinion
> > on new gTLDs,[5] GAC stated that:
> >
> >   3.5 The GAC discussed geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic
> >   concepts in relation to new gTLDs. These discussions will
> >   continue in subsequent meetings of the GAC.
> >
> >   3.6 The GAC notes that WIPO Member States have asked WIPO to
> >   consider and make recommendations   on issues related to bad
> >   faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of personal names,
> >   International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
> >   Substances, names of international intergovernmental
> >   organizations, geographical indications, indications of
> >   source or geographical terms, and trade names.
> >
> >   3.6.1 WIPO's report may lead to the development of policies
> >   in these areas. In these circumstances, the registration
> >   policies for new gTLDs, as approved by ICANN, could make
> >   reference to the WIPO 2nd Domain Names Process and provide
> >   for ready adoption of any ICANN policies resulting from this
> >   process. Accordingly, should registration policies initially
> >   implemented by new gTLDs allow for registrations of names in
> >   any of these categories, registrants should be made aware
> >   that the adoption of such policies may have potential impact
> >   on registrations.
> >
> > Had this advice been taken at the time, any registrant in the new
> > TLDs registering a name in any of the categories of names
> > addressed by the WIPO report would have done so in the full
> > knowledge that a policy development process arising from the WIPO
> > report could put at risk those registrations. GAC's attention was
> > drawn to the registration of large numbers of country names in
> > .info during the sunrise period and upon further investigation
> > it was evident that a large number of these registrations had not
> > met the necessary criteria. In the circumstances, and in light of
> > its previous statements, the GAC advised ICANN to take steps to
> > reserve country names in .info and assign them to the
> > corresponding governments and public authorities, at their request.
> >
> > Such action provides an option, within a small part of the DNS,
> > for many countries that have expressed serious concerns about
> > this issue. The GAC's recommendation in Montevideo is a focused
> > response to an issue that is of great concern to many countries.
> >
> > GAC is also aware that many governments that may have a concern
> > about the registration of their country names in .info are not
> > yet aware of these developments. Furthermore, registration of a
> > domain name tends to create expectations of continuing use by
> > Registrants. In the circumstances, the GAC's advice sought to
> > avoid conflict between such expectations and the expressed
> > interest of a number of countries to ensure that country names
> > are used in the interests of the general public in the country
> > concerned.
> >
> > 2. The WIPO-2 Report
> >
> > The recent WIPO resolution[6] mandates special sessions of the
> > Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT)[7] to address each aspect
> > of the WIPO-2 Report.[8] The SCT is asked to submit a report by
> > September 2002.
> >
> > 3. The GAC Recommendation
> >
> > Following thorough discussion, the GAC Communiqué addresses
> > primarily country names in .info according to ISO 3166-1.[9] In
> > developing its response, the GAC consulted with both ICANN and
> > Afilias with a view to ensuring a feasible and workable solution.
> >
> > >From the point of view of a number of governments and public
> > authorities, this is a minimum acceptable position and leaves
> > open a range of related issues to be addressed in the future.
> >
> > 4. Names Council Resolution
> >
> > It follows that resolution that has been adopted by the Names
> > Council raises several specific problems from GAC's point of
> > view. In general, the debate within the DNSO appears not to
> > recognise the major effort made by GAC members to circumscribe
> > and limit their requirement for reservation of the names of
> > countries in .info according to ISO 3166-1, as well as actively
> > seeking cooperation with Afilias regarding the approach..
> >
> > The GAC, provides the following comments in relation to aspects
> > of the Names Council's resolution:
> >
> >     1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution
> >     should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem
> >     that is not inherent to dot info.
> >
> > The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot
> > info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN
> > Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response
> > to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the
> > Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation
> > be applied to any other gTLD.
> >
> >     2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications
> >     for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind
> >     GAC seeks.
> >
> > The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during
> > the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the
> > GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their
> > registration process of names in .info and as such, there are
> > no retrospective implications for suppliers and users.
> >
> > It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns
> > about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue
> > in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended
> > that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the
> > possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with
> > registrants.
> >
> >     3. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for
> >     governments to seek solutions to the problems perceived by the
> >     GAC is the existing forum of such intellectual property
> >     expertise, namely the inter-governmental specialised UN agency,
> >     the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) combined
> >     with the existing forum for representing the internet community
> >     in policy making, the DNSO, and other relevant stakeholders.
> >
> > WIPO is a member of the GAC and as such, the GAC is aware of the
> > work being undertaken by WIPO in this area. WIPO has referred the
> > question back to its member governments who have decided on the
> > immediate follow-up.
> >
> > It must also be acknowledged that as the domain name system operates
> > in a dynamic environment, the GAC is aware that it may be called on
> > to provide advice in specific areas that may precede the work of
> > inter-governmental organisations such as WIPO. In this vein, ICANN
> > is to be commended for taking action, as it has done.
> >
> > In response to the request to the ICANN Board:
> >
> >     (a) To recommend to the GAC that it reconsiders its recommendation
> >     in this matter in the light of the work already in progress at
> >     WIPO following the recent WIPO report 'The Recognition of Rights
> >     and the use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System; and
> >
> >     (b) To encourage the GAC and all interested parts of the ICANN
> >     structure to contribute to WIPO's work in this respect.
> >
> > The GAC supports the notion that all interested parts of the ICANN
> > structure contribute to WIPO's work not only in respect to geographic
> > identifiers , but in relation to the work of WIPO more generally.
> > Many members of the GAC are also Member States of WIPO and as such
> > are well-informed on the work being undertaken.
> >
> >     (c) to invite the Names Council to participate in the discussion
> >     group on ISO 3166-1 names.
> >
> > The GAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue with the DNSO on
> > the understanding that the interested parties, including governments
> > can participate effectively.
> >
> > In conclusion, the GAC would welcome further discussion with the DNSO
> > and Names Council members in order to clarify the arguments on both
> > parts. However, the GAC disagrees with some of the arguments and
> > conclusions in the Names Council Resolution of 11 October 2001. GAC
> > members will be glad to participate in the Action Plan recently
> > announced by ICANN in this respect.
> >
> > Dr Paul Twomey
> > Chair
> >
> > 26 October 2001
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Notes:
> >
> > [1] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm
> >
> > [2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm
> >
> > [3] http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm
> >
> > [4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00202.html
> >
> > [5] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/new-tld-opinion-16nov00.htm
> >
> > [6] Assembly of the Member States of the WIPO, September 24 to
> >     October 3 2001. Decision on the Report of the Second WIPO Internet
> >     Domain Name process.
> >
> > [7] Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs
> >     and Geographical Indications (SCT).
> >
> > [8] Names of inter-governmental organisations (IGO), Geographical
> >     Names, International Non-Proprietary Names of pharmaceuticals
> >     (INNs) and Personal names.
> >
> > [9] As interpreted by ICANN and in official languages and in English.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or
> confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended
> recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the
> sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or
> disclose its contents to any other party.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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