<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>; "Alexander Svensson"
<alexander@svensson.de>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
> sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
> caught up here.
> ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
> how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption.
How do you figure Dan - the Internet Domain Name is either a marque or its
not. If it is, then there are other pre-existing rules about how marques are
used and what constitutes abandonment. If the registrars want to create a
set of Internet Marque rules then then need to take them through Congress.
As for what WLS implies, it is that "the failure to re-register in a timely
manner invalidates the ownership of the IP through abandonment", and that is
simply ludicrous. It also assumes that there is only one of any given marque
and as we are seeing with Countries like China's operating their own ROOT's
that this also simply is not true anymore.
Dont get hung up on the concept that NAT (yes Name to Address Translation)
and the operation of multiple independant roots is now about to change how
DNS is doled out on this planet, it already is.
So with that said, this one domain name only per wordset simply is not true.
The game here is that the Pro-WLS are narrowly focused on the ICANN-ONLY
Root and some of its registrars want to be able to book the sale of names
against the possibility that those names within the ICANN Root may become
abandoned. Which in their book is the same as expired and not re-registered.
So the real issue here again, is under the PTO's operating standards, is a
Domain Name reliably equatable as IP. If it is then the WLS stuff may
actually become a conspriacy between the Publications Agent and the Party
wishing to acquire the name. here is an example.
Registrar A registers a domain for Joe Bob. And then sells the first
position to Mazy Sue;
There are immediatly two questions that have to be answered. One of them is
IP centric, the other is operation's centric.
1) Is there a fidutiary responsibility from the Registrar booking
the WLS order, to inform Joe Bob that someone has registered for their
domain if it ever is abandoned.
2) Now assume that the WLS registrar booking the order, is the same
Registrar publishing the domain. How does this play out with other WLS
enabled Registrars, since if the domain is housed with the Registrar also
has a WLS against it, there is a fairness problem since
> In
> fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
> attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
> Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
> recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
> WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
> way around IP arguing with me.
>
> So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
> service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
> class?
See above commentary
> speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
> such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
> such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?
To some extent. But you mean Classification not Calcification?
>
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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@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
>>>
|