<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
Todd and all assembly members,
You are quite right that this is one of the more serious deficiencies
of WLS. But it is certainly not the only one. Versign is touting
WLS as a solution to the DELETE problem. WLS does not
completely address the DELETE problem as creates several
more problems of market fixing and the like that ICANN
should find as also a COI on several levels... Making
WLS a "Best Practice" or standard is just not legitimately
thinkable.
However there should be no restriction on Verisign in deploying
WLS of their own accord should they so choose to do so.
todd glassey wrote:
> The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in operations
> against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
> that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that they
> are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.
>
> This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
> would take an act of law to put in place.
>
> They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
> these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered, that
> the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
> abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
> assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into the
> control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.
>
> The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been in
> effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
> them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will likely be
> challenged in court.
>
> The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
> "commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and ICANN
> jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the corporation
> is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced such that
> the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages in
> WLS based damage claims... personally.
>
> My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works out,
> since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious act
> of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
> marques. And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete expired
> domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have the
> same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
> To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
> Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
>
> >
> >
> > From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> > >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of the
> Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below the
> result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits for
> clarity are mine.)
> > >Philip.
> > >
> > >----------------------------------
> > >I. Recommendation 1: To deny the WLS:
> > >
> > >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
> enforce the
> > >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> > >Accepted by all
> > >
> > >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend
> its agreement to
> > >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP, gTLD
> > >6 YES 2 NO
> > >
> > >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS
> for 12 months.
> > >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > >No: gTLD
> > >Abstain: NonC, IP
> > >5 YES 1 NO 2 ABSTENTIONS
> > >
> > >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP, gTLD
> > >6 YES 2 NO
> > >
> > >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
> recommendation.
> > >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
> > >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
> > >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved
> with
> > >conditions:
> > >
> > >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
> proven
> > >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> > >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> > >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> > >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> > >No:gTLD
> > >7 YES 1 NO
> > >
> > >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
> deletion practise
> > >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could
> be
> > >considered separately from WLS.
> > >
> > >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> > >
> > >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS
> and
> > >implemented before WLS.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> > >5 YES
> > >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
> > >place before
> > >WLS is implemented.
> > >Yes: IP, NonC
> > >2 YES
> > >
> > >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> > >Yes: gTLD
> > >1 YES
> > >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> > >
> > >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
> Registry
> > >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when
> a
> > >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> > >Yes: GA, NonC,
> > >2 YES
> > >
> > >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> > >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> > >Abstain: gTLD,
> > >5 YES 1 Abstain
> > >
> > >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as
> to who has placed
> > >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> > >No: IP
> > >Abstain: gTLD
> > >6 YES 1 NO 1 Abstain
> > >
> > >E. Cost. WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
> considerations for
> > >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> > >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> > >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> > >5 YES 3 Abstain
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --
> > 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@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 124k members/stakeholders 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: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|