RE: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Serv ice

["Safran, David" <DSafran@nixonpeabody.com>]

While not an official position of the IPC (I am forwarding a copy of this
message to Steve Metalitz for comment by the IPC leadership), my personal
reaction is that that a sunrise on WLS is probably not worth the trouble and
expense.  

Owners of domains related to their own marks, e.g., ATT.com, are unlikely to
intentionally allow them to expire (and is the reason for a grace period and
autorenewal being desired by IP owners) and the likelihood of such becoming
available via the WLS is not great and not worth the trouble and expense for
the IP owner to contest a WLS listing when all they need do is renew the
domain name to render the WLS listing irrelevant.

On the other hand, IP owners will not wait to acquire a domain name from the
WLS in the case of domain names that are currently held by a party who is
not entitled to use the mark, and will use other means, such as UDRP, to
acquire the domain sooner.

It would appear to me that the overwhelming us of the WLS will be to acquire
generic type domain names, such as cheapflights.com or computer4sale.com,
that are currently not available, and Sunrise is irrelevant for such generic
marks.

David S. Safran
Nixon Peabody LLP 
8180 Greensboro Drive
Suite 800
McLean, VA 22102
Office:  703.770.9315
Fax:  703.770.9400
dsafran@nixonpeabody.com 

This email message and any attachments are confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please immediately reply to the sender and delete the
message from your email system. Thank you.





-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; Transfer TF (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS
Service


Hearing from the IPC on the specific points that John and Marc have raised
would be very useful from my perspective.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service


> posted with consent of sender.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit
by
> > a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
> > sunrise WLSes.
>
> That's true. Upon institution of the WLS, there will clearly be a rush of
> applicants to get onto the WLS.  This could overload the registry's
> capability to deal with management of the WLS, in addition to encouraging
> WLS-squatting.
>
> So, yes, a sunrise period for registered trademark holders would make
sense.
> Then, we'll need a WLS sunrise challenge procedure prior to population of
> the actual WLS queue, and then a WLSDRP for claims arising once operation
of
> the WLS goes forward.
>
> The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> all, in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> the inception of ICANN.  This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> property owners.
>
>
> --
> 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
>