[wg-b] TIME OUT

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

Before things get carried away lets everyone stop and take a deep breath -
please read the following so that everyone is on the same page.

I would like to make the following comments. The reason "we" are all
participating in this working group is because of the ICANN's board
resolution in Berlin.

FURTHER RESOLVED, the ICANN Board refers the recommendations in Chapters 4
and 5 (with associated annexes) of the WIPO report to the ICANN DNSO for
recommendations on the topics of those chapters, to be submitted to the
ICANN Board at the earliest practicable time after the Board's meeting
scheduled for August 24-26, 1999 in Santiago.

Now what this means to me in plain English is that our task is to make
recommendations to the Names Counsel on Chapter 4 - The Problem of
Notoriety: Famous and Well-Known Marks.
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/final/FinalReport_4.html#CH4

Prior to Santiago I prepared a list of preliminary questions for discussion.
See http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/msg00021.html These questions
were posted to raise serious discussion on some of the issues before us.
They were intended to be content neutral, as co-chair it is not in the
group's best interest for me to take sides.

After Santiago some participants raised the issue that the first question we
address should be whether the risk-benefit analysis favors adopting any
safeguards at all. This was the birth of Question 0.  Some participants
raised concerns about the lack of non-intellectual property participation in
the WIPO drafting process. Without addressing the merits or this argument I
thought as co-chair that it was in this group's best interest to start with
a clean slate. If we as a group adopted that safeguards were required then
it would be viewed with extreme skepticism that we boot-strapped our
results. I do not believe that it is in the interest of any participant to
have our collective hard work discarded because we started out on the wrong
foot.

The purpose of the "non-binding" straw vote was to see where the
participants in this working group stand on Question 0. The straw vote,
although not perfect, did achieve some positive results and reinforced to me
the need for a votebot in ALL ICANN consensus building procedures. Counting
votes the old fashion way just does not cut it.

In addition to my other responsibilities I have been attempting to locate
"new faces" to participate in this process. Specifically, under the ICANN
by-laws I have been told that we need a representative from each of the
seven constituencies. The last time I checked we were still missing some
people - specifically participation from NSI in their role as a gTLD.

Where do we go from here?
I would like to be able have a preliminary report to the names counsel prior
to LA with where we stand on Question 0. Obviously, if there is a consensus
against safeguards the preliminary report may in fact be our final report.
With this in mind I welcome suggestions on the formulation of the "formal"
Question 0. I expect to be circulating this first "formal" vote sometime
next week after I have finalized the names counsel elections for the
registrar constituency.

I know I sound like a broken record but the votebot will simplify things,
i.e notice of voting process beginning, min. traffic on mailing list, etc.
Please look at http://www.dnso.org/www/wgb/votes/ to see the results of the
sample vote. This is the location that all future "formal" vote results will
be posted. Thanks again for everyone patience and for those people that
exercised their right to vote, even if some of you were a little late :)
Please note that the Votebot has protocols to halt the submissions of votes
after the voting period has ended.

Best regards,

Mike