Re: [wg-b] FORMAL BALLOT No. 1

[mark@bitshift.org]

On 21 October 1999, "Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com> wrote:

>Voting is scheduled to end on Monday midnight EST.
>Please do _not_ edit the ballot beyond indicating your choice with an X in
>between the appropriate brackets "[]".
>QUESTION #1
>[Please identify the constituency group, if any, that you are representing]
>[] ccTLD Constituency
>[] gTLD Constituency
>[] Registrars Constituency
>[] Intellectual Property Constituency
>[] Commercial and Business Entities Constituency
>[] ISPs and Connectivity Providers
>[] Non-commercial Domain Name Holder Constituency
>[X] I do not represent any Domain Name Supporting Organization, I am
>participating in an individual capacity
>
>QUESTION #2
>[Please identify your region of citizenship (not residence)]
>[X] North America
>[] Asia/Australia/Pacific
>[] Europe
>[] Latin and S. America
>[] Latin America/Caribbean Islands
>[] Africa
>
>QUESTION #3
>[Please select ONE of the options listed below]
>[] Option A - Some type of mechanism, yet to be determined, is necessary in
>connection with famous trademarks and the operation of the Domain Name
>System.
>[] Option B - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for the protection of
>famous marks, because other mechanisms are adequate
>[] Option C - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for the protection of
>famous marks, because it exceeds the scope of ICANN's authority
>[X] Option D - Both Option B & C
>[] Option E - I choose to abstain from the voting process at this time
>
>COMMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH QUESTION #3:
>(Comments should be limited to 1 or 2 paragraphs)
>
>

I strongly believe that no famous, trade, or other mark or intellectual
property protection should be implemented in any aspect of the domain name
system.  Current federal laws and international agreements clearly provide
an existing framework within which the owners of the marks may police their
property and protect their marks.  To allow such protections to be built
into the domain name system is to circumvent these laws and agreements, and
to shift the burden of mark protection from the owner of the mark (as
required by law) to the individual and the disinterested third party.

Furthermore, if such protections are to be built into the domain name system,
the regitries and registrars would be liable for any and all violations
not caught by these protections.  This would lead to either overly-
restrictive protections which would hamper future growth, or lessened
participation by prospective registries and registrars, also hampering
future growth.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA


>
>
>
>END OF BALLOT
>
>
>