RE: [registrars] Moving the gTLD debate forward...

["Timothy Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca>]

Paul:
I want the Names Council to vote in such a fashion that registrars see an
expansion of domain names in the near future. I do not believe that absence
of a two-thirds consensus coming out of WG-B on means to protect famous
names constitutes an insuperable impediment to the expansion of domain
names.

Let us be clear about who is doing what here. The opponents of domain name
expansion are the very parties which have every incentive to fail to agree
on means of protecting famous names. There is some agreement among
registrars that they should obtain a measure of protection. This was
apparent from the teleconference Tucows sponsored, though it was not a
unanimous view, it was broadly shared.

Nevertheless, the negotiating dynamics have to considered. It is not up to
registrars alone to propose solutions and the IP interests to dispose of
them. In the current negotiating dynamics of ICANN's supporting bodies, IP
interests, so it would appear, have only to do nothing to succeed. That was
the clear message coming from your earlier email of today. Absence of
consensus as to mechanism is an excuse for some to delay proposals reaching
the ICANN Board for TLD expansion, if I may summarize the gist of your
message. I would like to see that negotiating dynamic change.

Two facts are clear. No famous names list exists and no mechanism for
creating it has been successfully adopted. The Chairman of WG-B, Michael
Palage, has proposed measures which go as far as the consensus went.

Let the NC propose expansion of domain names, as they already have.

I do not see any resolution of the issue of famous names protection until it
has reached ICANN's Board. If domain name expansion can be agreed upon
sooner in the Names Council in such a way as not to compromise the essential
interests of registrars and users of the Internet, so much the better.

But the burden of finding solutions to the famous names problem is not on
the registrars alone. And I don't want registrar representatives on the
Names Council to put registrars into the position where they bear the burden
of solving problems that some of the IP interests have had no incentive to
solve. I think it is perfectly fair to point out to the opponents of TLD
expansion in the Names Council that failure to solve these problems of
safeguards in WG-B cannot be used as an excuse to prevent the proposal
reaching the ICANN Board that TLDs should be expanded.





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 4:15 PM
To: Timothy Denton
Cc: Louis Touton; registrars@dnso.org; edyson@edventure.com
Subject: Re: [registrars] Moving the gTLD debate forward...


Tim,

Timothy Denton wrote:

> Paul:
>
> I again smell bad faith in proposals of the sort that say: "well, WG-B
could
> not come up with consensus on tghe means for the protection of famous
names
> so we obviously cannot have new TLD's."

What's your mission, ...... to stall the whole debate????

I don't smell that aroma ....and to make sure, I think it would be prudent
for
the NC to keep the ball moving forward by recognizing the areas of consensus
and
giving a broad and positive path for the Board to consider the introduction
of
new gTLDs..... in the knowledge they have the full support of the Registrar
constituency... .

If you want to wait until WG B comes to consensus, or prefer the NC to bring
the
current consensus points together in a manner that the Board can take it to
the
next stage.. please state your preference??  The reason for asking the
question
is to specifically avoid the "smell" and to send a clear message to the
Board
that they should move forward with this most pressing issue.

Since my earlier mail I have received a significant number of private emails
requesting me to vote in a manner that moves the debate move forward, if you
want to stall the debate, please say so, justifying your reasons.  I welcome
your feedback.

Thanks

Paul