[wg-b] Request for extension of time for Submission of Position Papers to WG-B

[Jonathan Cohen <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>]

Dear Mike:

I am writing to you at this time not in my capacity as an ICANN director,
but more informally as the former co-chair of this WG and the Past
President of the IPC.  

I note the many requests for an extension of time for the Nov. 17/99
deadline that have been submitted, including that sent by Steve Metalitz,
Acting President of the IPC, and would add my own request to this list.  

There is nothing wrong with the timeline you have proposed, other than the
relative shortness of time it allows for the preparation of position
papers, although the adequacy of the time allowed is far more easily judged
at the end of it than at the beginning.  Setting out a timeline and various
deadlines was, in fact, a wise step because it has succeeded in getting
people to actively work on preparing their position papers.  It appears
that a number of parties are interested in making formal submissions and
are working on preparing them, however one of the two and a half allowed
weeks was consumed by the ICANN LA meetings.  This effectively shortened
the time period to less than two weeks.

As much as I agree with your desire to keep WG-B's work moving forward, and
as necessary as it is to have a schedule in place to make that happen, I
would just note that, as long as the process is in fact moving forward,
strict adherence to the schedule is far less important than allowing
sufficient time for all interested parties and communities to prepare
comprehensive papers.  

This is too important a matter involving too many complex issues and
affecting too many different interested parties, to justify sacrificing
substance in favour of expediency, in order to comply with a short
deadline.  One of the major criticisms of WG-A's work was the lack of time
it was given to consult and prepare its report.  At the time, there wasn't
a real option to have the time extended, as there is here. 

The IPC is one of the communities that has a significant interest in the
question of well-known marks.  As Steve Metalitz has indicated, the IPC is
currently preparing its submission on the mechanism for protection of
well-known marks, however the goal is to make the paper as comprehensive,
constructive and reflective of the views of the constituency as a whole
(including any dissenting opinions), as possible.  To do this, the IPC
would request that the deadline for submission be extended to at least
December 8.  

I am unaware of any dramatic urgency for requiring position papers to be
posted earlier than either December 8 (or December 3 which is the date
requested by others on the wg-b list).  The subsequent steps in the
schedule can all be accordingly adjusted and pushed back such that the
ICANN Board receives a report from the Names Council in time for
consideration at the beginning of the New Year.  

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards,

Jonathan