Re: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

[Mark Measday <measday@attglobal.net>]

Mr Palage should be congratulated on his work.

I believe it is unfair to characterise this and other working groups as attempts
to bring US lawyers up to speed on the issues, and those that do so are showing
the same blindness fopr which they castigate others.

One only hopes that the clarity of analysis in terms of (i) future application
of the results of these issues and (ii) their geographical relevance will
continue.

However, it might be apposite were Mr Palage to orient his readers to
appropriate source materials to decide their attitude to questions below. I hope
this does not appear a disrespectful suggestion, it might speed things.
Geographic balance is an obvious problem at the moment.

MM

"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> PLEASE READ THIS E-MAIL AS IT SUMMARIZES THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION AND THE
> NEXT STEP THE GROUP WILL TAKE GOING FORWARD.
>
> Listed below are the results from the voting process. As most things
> associated with ICANN, the results are not as simple as they should be.
> There were concerns raised by some individuals on the list regarding voting
> by multiple people within the same organization. Specially, Marilyn Cade &
> Michele Farber from AT&T; Jim Bramson & Elizabeth Frazee from AOL, Maria
> Equiron  & Teresa Sobreviela  from InterDomain and Victoria Carrington &
> Jonathan Cohen from the law firm of Shapiro & Cohen. There was also was some
> concern about Tod Cohen & Ted Shapiro from the MPAA. However, this issue
> never materialized because Ted Shapiro did not vote. Either way the votes
> are counted and there appears to be consensus on Option A. I will announce
> these votes as final after individuals are able to very that I recorded
> their votes properly. For anyone that would like the Excel spread sheet
> please request it and I will forward it to you directly. (detailed results
> listed below)
>
> Now we must decide as a working group where we choose to go. I offer the
> following suggestions. There are two areas that need to be addressed: (1)
> what criteria/process will be used in defining famous marks and (2) how will
> this process interact with the roll-out of new gTLDs. I believe these
> questions are starting us down the right paths. However, I open to other
> suggestions.
>
> Next Potential Voting Question:
>
> In defining what is a famous mark, should (1) objective standards be used,
> i.e. registered in X number of countries, X in sales, only X number of
> famous marks recognized (2) subjective standards, i.e. universal consumer
> recognition, etc. or (3) a combination or both, i.e. a process where an
> trademark owner would have to meet certain objective criteria before a panel
> would make a subjective evaluation on whether a mark is famous or not.
>
> Next Potential Voting Question:
>
> In providing mechanisms to protect famous trademarks, what should the scope
> of protection be: (1) just the trademark string itself "famousmark"; (2)
> clearly defined variations of the trademark, i.e. "famousmark" or
> "famous-mark"; or (3) the substring itself, i.e. "famousmarks",
> "famousmark1", etc.
>
> In building consensus we must do so one issue at a time, the reason I have
> focused on these two questions is because we have already discussed these
> issues in detail on the list previously.
>
> In going forward I believe "safeguards" should be our primary concerns.
> Safeguards for large multinational corporations, safeguards for small
> businesses and individual domain name holders, safeguards for Internet users
> and consumers, safeguards against the contemplated mechanisms from being
> utilized by marks which are in fact not famous, etc. This vote was just the
> first step in a long journey and we must continue to be sensitive to each
> individuals' concerns.
>
> Since we have now committed toward exploring projectionist mechanisms, I
> suggest that prior to releasing our final report we conduct a final vote
> similar to the one we just got done completing. Here is the basis of my
> reasoning. Because we do not know the exact scope of the projectionist
> mechanisms we may agree upon, one or two people expressed reservations about
> voting for Option A.  The purpose of the final vote is NOT to overturn the
> arduous task we are about to undertake but to provide a reaffirmation that
> the benefits associated with these projectionist mechanisms out weight the
> risks. Just to clarify, regardless of the outcome of the final vote that I
> suggest, the final report will be submitted to the Names Counsel.  It will
> just include a statement that after everything is said and done, the group
> either continues to support this original consensus or its position has
> changed.
>
> That is all for now. I am sure that there are some people that will have
> concerns about certain content/issues contained in this e-mail. If so,
> please advise me and I will take it under advisement.
>
> Good night,
>
> Mike
>
> ELECTION RESULTS
>
> Unedited Results (co-chair not included)
> Eligible voters: 54
> Votes cast: 41 (76%)
> Option A: 30
> Option B: 4
> Option C: 0
> Option D: 7
> Option E: 0
> Number needed for consensus: 28
> RESULTS: Consensus for Option A
>
> Edited Results (co-chairs not included)
> Eligible voters: 51
> Votes cast: 38 (75%)
> Option A: 27
> Option B: 4
> Option C: 0
> Option D: 7
> Option E: 0
> Number needed for consensus: 26
> RESULTS: Consensus for Option A
>
> Note: One vote for AT&T, AOL, & InterDomain were redacted to demonstrate
> that consensus was achieved without any ballot stuffing.
>
> Voting Profile:
>
> CONSTITUIENCIES:
>
> ccTLD: 3
> gTLD: 0
> Registrars: 3
> IP: 10
> Commercial: 8
> ISPs: 1
> Non-Profit: 6
> Not a constituency member: 13
>
> Note: Some people indicated multiple constituencies
>
> GEOGRAPHIC PARTICIPATION:
>
> North America: 28
> Asia Pacific: 4
> Europe: 7
> Latin America: 2
> Africa: 0
>
> Votes on Question #3
>
> "Bill Barber" <bbarber@awd.com> Option A
> "Mike Heltzer" <mheltzer@inta.org> Option A
> "Kathy Kleiman" <kathrynkl@aol.com> Option D
> "Tod Cohen" <tcohen@mpaa.org> Option A
> "Alberto R. Berton Moreno Jr." <law@sbm.com.ar> Option A
> "John Wood" <johnwood@kpmg.com> Did not vote
> "Peter Weiss" <peter.weiss@chanelusa.com> Did not vote
> "Davia Tamulioniene" <daiva@sc-uni.ktu.lt>Option A
> "Khaw Yaw Tuan" <yewtuan@ncb.gov.sg> Option B
> "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> Option D
> "Ted Shapiro " <Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org> Did not vote
> "Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com> Voted
> "Younjung Park" <yjpark@nic.or.kr> Option A
> "Mark Measday" <measday@josmarian.ch> Did not vote
> "Eileen Kent" <eileenk@enteract.com> Option A
> "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> Option D
> "Michael Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com> Voted
> "Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net> Option A
> "Stafferd Guest" <sguest@cas.nu> Option B
> "Toshi Tsubo" <tsubo@global-commons.co.jp> Did not vote
> "Peter Gerrand" <peter.gerrand@melbourneit.com.au> Option A
> "Peter Dengate-Thrush" <pdthrush@chambers.gen.nz>  Did not vote
> "Tom Barret" <tom.barrett@netnames.com> Did not vote
> "Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com> Option A
> "Harald Tveit Alvestrand " <harald@alvestrand.no> Option B
> "Jeffery J. Neuman" <NeumanJ@gtlaw.com> Option A
> "Michele Farber" <mafarber@att.com> Option A
> "Maria Equiron" <meguiron@interdomain.org> Option A
> "Teresa Sobreviela" <mts@interdomain.org> Option A
> "Rodrigo Marre" <rodrigo.marre@bakernet.com> Did not vote
> "Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@fapesp.br> Option A
> "Sarah Deutsch" <SARAH.B.DEUTSCH@bellatlantic.com> Option A
> "Jim Bramson" <jimbramson@aol.com> Option A
> "Timothy Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca> Option B
> "kim kwangsu" <ks@mic.go.kr> Did not vote
> "Rob Hall" <rob@echelon.ca> Did not vote
> "Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com> Option D
> "Elizabeth Frazee" <Elizfrazee@aol.com> Option A
> "Kerry Owens" <OwensK@arentfox.com> Option A
> "Pan-Jeong Lee" <pjlee@ibi.net> Did not vote
> "Young-Ok Park" <okpark@ibi.net> Did not vote
> "Otho B. Ross" <attyross@aol.com> Option A
> "Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org> Option D
> "Steve Hartman" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com> Option A
> "Michael J Mlotkowski" <michael_j_mlotkowski@email.mobil.com> Option A
> "Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com> Option A
> "Greg Phillips" <GDP@HPALAW.com> Option A
> "Dennis Schaefer"<d3nnis@mciworld.com> Option D
> "Dave Wilson" <wilsond1@sgbdc.com> Option A
> "Victoria Carrington" <vcarrington@shapirocohen.com> Option A
> "Andrea Morisi" <MorisiA@usa.redcross.org> Option A
> "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> Option D
> "Michelena Hallie" <Michelena.Hallie@viacom.com> Option A
> "Doug Bush" <dougbush@cs.com> Option A
> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Option A
> "Sue Leader " <exe.dir@isocnz.org.nz> Did not vote
begin:vcard 
n:Measday;Mark
tel;cell:0044.370.947.420
tel;fax:0033.450.20.94.92
tel;home:0033.450.20.94.92
tel;work:0044.1273.474894
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.josmarian.ch
org:Josmarian (UK) Ltd
version:2.1
email;internet:measday@josmarian.ch
title:Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;The Old Vicarage =0D=0A;Iford Nr Lewes;Sussex;BN7 3EH;United Kingdom
fn:Mark Richard Measday
end:vcard