RE: [nc-intake] RE: LA NC agenda

["Cochetti, Roger" <rogerc@netsol.com>]

Sure Caroline

This is especially relevant to you since in my view any discussion in the
Council of options for protecting IP in the roll out of new gTLD's should
turn in large part on a commentary by the IPC on their views of the
strengths and weaknesses of each optional approach.  For example, I have
tended to believe that a pre-registration period (e.g. something like a
"sunrise")  that permits trademark holders to pre-register SLD's would be
the most efficient mechanism to protect IP rights. Francis Gurry -whose
views I highly respect, in comparison, seems to feel otherwise.  I think his
view is that a post registration accelerated/simplified dispute resolution
process would be the most efficient approach to protecting IP rights.
Certainly there are quite a few other well informed views.

There are around a half dozen approaches that I have heard that, I believe,
deserve open and educated discussion with the benefits and drawbacks of each
pointed out.  Who better to do that than the Names Council?  (The Board?
ICANN management in private?  DNSO Constituencies in private?)  It may be
that such a discussion leads nowhere, in which case I think we'll have
discharged a major responsibility to show the world that we are awake and
educate ourselves and the public.  Or it may be that we surprise even
ourselves and discover some lines of consensus that we did not previously
know existed. 

Perhaps we could invite the ICANN staff to present the major options to us
and then have a discussion of each?  Perhaps we could invite a few outsiders
to each give us a 5 minute presentation in which they offer a the pro's and
con's of their favorite solution...and then have a detailed discussion.

Its just hard for me to see how we can say that the Council has finished our
work in this area and that there is some other body that is better qualified
to figure things out..

Roger

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------

Theresa...Since I suggested the item, let me explain.  While the Council has
had two discussions on the topic, it would be difficult to say that it has
put forward either detailed or thorough recommendations.  No group of people
anywhere is better qualified than the NC to examine the issues of protecting
IP in the creation of new gTLDs and if we leave our work at the status quo,
then I don't think the Council has made the contribution that it was created
to make. So my thought was to have a Council discussion in which we examined
the alternative types of approaches and discussed the strengths and
weaknesses of each.  We may surprise ourselves and find there is a greater
consensus than we had expected or we may confirm your implicit expectation
that there's not much either new or that we can contribute.  My sense is
that the subject is important enough to justify the effort...Roger


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
 
      

-----Original Message-----
From: cchicoine@dkwlaw.com [mailto:cchicoine@dkwlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:11 PM
To: Cochetti, Roger
Cc: DNSO Intake; owner-nc-intake@dnso.org; 'Philip Sheppard';
_"Cochetti,_Roger"_
Subject: Re: [nc-intake] RE: LA NC agenda



I do not remember seeing note to Theresa.  Can someone forward to me.,
Thanks

Caroline G. Chicoine
Doepken Keevican & Weiss
211 N. Broadway, Ste 1500
St. Louis, MO 63102
314-588-2013
314-588-2009 (fax)
314-378-3269 (cell)
cchicoine@dkwlaw.com