RE: [registrars] Conference call? on IPC proposals

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>]

My understanding was that the conf is for tues 4.00 pm est.

erica

Dr Erica L ROBERTS
Manager, Corporate Relations and Policy
Level 2, 120 King St
Melbourne
VIC 3000
AUSTRALIA
Tel: 613 862 42416
Mob: 0411 072 531

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]  On
Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
Sent:	Thursday, April 20, 2000 2:34 PM
To:	Timothy Denton; registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	RE: [registrars] Conference call? on IPC proposals

Absolutely interested in the conference call, but I won't be able to make it
on Thursday.

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Timothy Denton
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:39 AM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: [registrars] Conference call? on IPC proposals
>
>
> To the registrars:
> The letter below was sent earlier to Michael Palage.
>
> Clearly the registrars have not consulted among themselves about
> the latest
> proposals and the letter below email was sent in response to a letter from
> Michael complaining about Tucows' position.
>
> Tucows has offered its facilities for a conference call on domain
> name-trade
> marks issues. We are willing to bear the cost.
>
> Do you registrars wish to have a conference call on the
> appropriate reponse,
> if any, to Trade Mark/Famous Names proposals issue?
>
> It seems that on so vital a matter for registrars they should confer and
> decide for themsleves what they think and where they should go.
>
> Respond to the registrars list and Michael Palage, please, yea or nay, to
> the idea of a conference call on TM-related issues.
>
> What follows is for the record.
>
> Tim Denton
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Denton [mailto:tmdenton@magma.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 4:28 PM
> To: mpalage@infonetworks.com
> Cc: Owner-Registrars
> Subject: RE: [registrars] WG-B Update
>
>
> Michael:
> Let me be as exact as we can, and try to soothe your bruised
> honour as much
> as possible.
>
> You have had presented to you, as Chairman of WG-B, at the last  minute, a
> proposal that you did not write and over which you do not exercise any
> control, so far as I know.
>
> The "proposal" as such as found on the ICANN website which you duly
> forwarded does not purport to be a consensus document, nor does
> it say that
> there has been adequate consultation. In fact, it says that there has not
> been time for consultation.
>
> The web page reads in part:
>
>
> "Since Cairo, the registrar constituency has potentially agreed upon the
> following amendments to it original position statement. Specifically, the
> Registrars are willing to back the creation of a Famous Marks list by a
> qualified administrative panel such as WIPO, provided that such
> list is only
> used in connection with a voluntary sunrise period and NOT in connection
> with any filtering mechanism.
>
> "The registrars, in an effort to seek consensus on behalf of the
> Intellectual Property (IPC) and the Non-Commercial (NCC)
> Constituencies, are
> also considering the following: 1) to address the concerns of the IPC with
> regard to sub-string protection, which is not currently part of the WIPO
> Chapter Four proposal, allowing the famous mark holders the ability to
> register a limited number of sub-string variations during the sunrise
> period; and 2) to address the concerns of the NCC, whether such a sunrise
> period is appropriate in any new chartered non-commercial top-level
> domains."
>
> end of snip...
>
>
>
> The expansion of the famous names list into an
> all-trade-marks-everywhere-in- the-world list, plus 20 variations, is
> exponentially larger - and I am using the word accurately - than what
> registrars were inclined to accept in Cairo. I would guess it to be larger
> by five or six orders of magnitude. It is not remotely the same
> as a famous
> names list, which drew the interest of registrars as long as it
> involved no
> filters.
>
> Second, the word from on-high is that registrars and the general
> public will
> be getting two or three new domains, not 6 or 12, on its way to infinity.
> The bet, upon which rational men may differ, is whether useful compromise
> with the IPC can be achieved.
>
> It would  be in the interests of registrars collectively to
> determine their
> views of the latest proposal. And this has not happened yet, in
> part because
> facilities for a conference call were (apparently) not available.
>
> Tucows has offered its facilities for a conference call this week
> at 2pm EST
> or 4pm EST on Thursday afternoon. 4pm might allow the early risers in
> Australia to have a say. As you are the Secretary of this
> registrars' group,
> it is for you (I believe) to announce the call. Tucows is at your disposal
> and awaits your decision as to whether this call should be on Thursday or
> some other day, and at what time. As of now, it can be
> re-arranged from its
> tentative 2pm EST time Thursday, May 20.
>
> I consider to you to be acting in good faith. Your conception of the
> registrars' best interests may differ from mine. It is, after
> all, a matter
> on which reasonable people such as you and I may have different opinions.
> The important question is: what does the registrars' constituency think of
> the latest IPC proposals?
>
> Sincerely,
>
>  Timothy Denton
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 3:42 PM
> To: Registrars@Dnso.Org
> Subject: [registrars] WG-B Update
>
>
> I believe I have demonstrated since the inception of this
> constituency to be
> a man of principle who always represents the best interests of this
> constituency.  I regret that TUCOWS and their legal representative Mr.
> Denton believe that I have some how sold you out. The sunrise
> proposal that
> the IPC has adopted is almost identical to the proposal we adopted in a
> telephone conference prior to Cairo.  In addition, Mr. Denton has
> failed to
> mention that the majority of the traffic on the WG-B list in opposition to
> the Sunrise proposal are the SAME EXACT people that OPPOSED the UDRP.
>
> In addition to my posts to the list, I have been in contact with
> a number of
> registrars to keep them apprised of the developing situation. The fact
> remains that the original WIPO and IPC proposal involved a system where we
> received ZERO ($0) compensation and were required to employ filtering
> software ($$$ + potential liability).  The current proposal
> allows us to be
> equitably compensated while at the same time working with the IPC
> to create
> a better dialog.  For those that would like to read my report I have
> enclosed it for your review.
>
> I believe that the actions of the Names Council today are another
> important
> step in the controlled responsible growth of the name space.
>
> If anyone has any problems please do not hesitate to contact as usual.
>
> Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
>