Re: [ga] What causes the problem?

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> Okay, let's try to sort out what is in the scope of the various groups.  And
> to spend energy where it is useful and where it can make a significant
> difference.
>
> First, the UDRP, whether one likes it as a concept or not, exists. And is
> working. You can go check out the list of cases and make your own value
> judgment about the outcomes.  I don't know what value it adds to suggest a
> boycott.

I am only suggesting a boycott in cases where no
coined word is involved, as
well as in cases where there is no substantial
proof of attempting to sell a
domain to a trademark holder.  I think that this
is actually quite a reasonable
request.

> When infringements occur, some action takes place.  If there is
> objection to the extension to the extension to geographic names, then one
> should participate in the forum where that debate is taking place. It's not
> ICANN. It's WIPO.

But any WIPO outcome will be incorporated by
ICANN, as the UDRP is an
ICANN-sanctioned process.  It's not WIPO that has
the registrars include the
UDRP clause in their domain registration
agreements... it's ICANN.  Domains are
not governed by WIPO!  Domain policy is not the
sole prerogative of WIPO,
surely?

> You could have chosen to participate by filing comments in RFC-2 of the WIPO
> process. And if you missed that, please still submit comments. I've found
> WIPO open to listening,even if you miss deadlines.

You are a somebody with AT&T.  I am a nobody, and
so are most of the people who
consider WIPO to be hugely biased.  Although, you
may find them open to
listening to yourself and others like you, I'm
sure it's a little different for
the little folk; after all, look at the membership
rules for the IPC...

> The public process for
> comment, by the way, is only beginning, with public meetings being held
> around the world. I've not paid much attention them, but recall that the
> first is in Chicago; others are in Europe and Asia; and that online comments
> are welcomed.   The WIPO considerations are in response to letters from
> member governments. They didn't generate their work program at the request
> of ICANN. You can check out the site at WIPO.int, and see the letter of
> request from 19 member countries.

The country's have their own ccTLDs at their
disposal for geographic
designations, why don't they usurp those?  Failing
this, why don't they simply
use the .int TLD?  But this is still pretty silly,
for who will have first dibs
on ATHENS.INT, or GEORGETOWN.INT (I believe
there's like 15 Georgetowns in my
atlas!)  Truly, this is the most grasping move
under consideration by WIPO
to-date... this will lead to a great deal of
problems if it is pursued.  Let
each of the governments in question either use
their .gov.xx subdomains or the
ccTLDs for geographic indications.  The current
considerations are ludicrous and
will lead to trouble.  (Of course, the lawyers
don't mind, do they?)

> About the  study of the @large and what is the right approach. There is a
> process to study what should happen next, chaired by Carl Bildt, a highly
> respected European.

What should happen next?  What about the 4
remaining @Large BoD seats?  ICANN
has not fulfilled the bylaw requirements of  9
@Large Directors ... how about we
complete that bylaw stipulation before we move on
to others like the Study, for
instance?!

> There will be a meeting,  I understand, of the @Large
> group to take public comment in Melbourne, in Stockhelm, and in other
> mechanisms. Perhaps that is a better strategy for this group to be focused
> on? To ensure that online participation can be included in those meetings?
> and that the meetings take place at the ICANN Meetings when the largest
> representation of folks can participate?

This is an interesting proposal and consideration,
but again, why are the ICANN
bylaws being so flagrantly selectively enforced?

> What is in this group's scope is about the GA. what is the GA doing to do to
> add meaning, create an appearance at least of organizational structure so
> that all can participate. Electing a chair is a first step.

I agree that this is an important endeavour for
the DNSO.  But, do you agree
that organizing the @Large is also something
worthwhile and important for ICANN?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Hermes Network, Inc.
--
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