[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[comments-wgb] ATTENTION: I Believe something is afoul here....Please Read...
*Conclusion*
INTA appreciates this
opportunity to provide comments to the Names Council
and the ICANN Board on
the "WG-B Report" and we look forward to working with
our ICANN
colleagues towards achieving consensus on a final
recommendation
which will minimize the use of new TLDs to infringe upon
trademark rights.
Mike Heltzer
INTA Government Relations
Manager
and Staff Liaison to the INTA Special Committee
on
the Internet"
After reading the above email (in it's entirety)
something didn't sit right...If you have read the report on what WG-B is doing I
suggest you do ( http://www.icann.com/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm )....Anyways
the opening of their report (below--VERBATIM) states that the make up of this
board is mostly trademark attorneys/and or brand managers.....Now put 2 and 2
together (the above statements from INTA and the one below from the Chair of
WG-B (Michael Palage) and what possible conclusion could you come up
with....)
"Working Group B was
created in Berlin last year and tasked with addressing Chapter Four of the WIPO
report. Since that time the group has met at each of the last three ICANN
regional meetings. There are currently over 120 participants on the Working
Group B mailing list. Although the majority of the participants are trademark
attorneys and/or brand managers, the remaining participants are scattered
among a diverse cross section of the other six DNSO
constituencies"
I would strongly urge the Chair of this WG-B to
seriously consider putting off any recommendation to ICANN until the make up of
this board is a little more "balanced".....I know what your response will be in
that we as people who do not agree with the "Sunrise Plus 20" proposal can write
into this board and make comments, however the fact remains that the board
members (made up most of trademark attorney's/brand manager's" will listen
to their constinuency....which by your bylaws are supposed to do.....WHO COULD
that be. Come on DNSO....We as intelligent persons can get the
picture. It's not that I am for Trademark Infringement...Like I said
earlier in one of my email (see below)...The "Sunrise Plus" proposal does make
an attempt at this problem, but you will be suprised how little this will
do....Again, TECHNOLOGY that is available is the key......
What I propose is that this board disband as it
cannot possibly come to a "fair and equitable" course of action if the
"Trademark" lobby and businesses are in the majority on this
board.....Conducting a board with the deck stacked (in my opinion from the above
evidence on this website) will only hurt the Trademark lobby and businesses
(which I do agree need protection) as any recommendation to ICANN
by WG-B in favor of the "Sunrise Proposal" will be seen as VERY partial and
consequently open to possible sanctions later down the road (which will again
hurt the constinuents your trying to
protect)......
**Here are links to some of my comments (to be
fair) that I have made so as to give my perspective...I believe in openess
:
**Just a little background...I am just a private
citizen....asking for an impartial jury (ICANN) to rule in a fair and equitable
manner this summer....So far my side is sitting 0 to 1....WG-C board
recommendation for 6 to 10 domains were reduced to "just a
few".....