RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

["Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>]

>it will be a solution that we all can live with.

Michael - we all who?  Who exactly to you presume to speak for?

---------------------
Mikki Barry says:

There is very little common ground here I am afraid.  The trademark
lawyers already have pushed through a UDRP, the "anti-cybersquatting
act" and various other laws that already protect them far more than
is warranted.  And no, this is not a solution we all can live with.
This is a solution that registrars and trademark lawyers can live
with.  Non commercial and free speech interests, small businesses,
and individual users will not be able to live with this.
---------------------

Ditto.

Judith

800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Consulting – FREE Daily HeadsUp Headlines.
"...superb real-time source..." –– "...invaluable..." ––
"...indispensable..."
http://ICBTollFree.com –– http://1800TheExpert.com ––  (U.S.) 1 800 The
Expert
Judith Oppenheimer –– mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com ––  +1 212
684-7210


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Mikki
Barry
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2000 5:15 PM
To: mpalage@infonetworks.com
Cc: wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline


At 4:58 PM -0500 3/24/00, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>Valid concerns. Let me offer you the following insight.
>
>The registrars are not too concerned with the size of the list, within
>reason, as long as it is used in connection with a sunrise right of first
>refusal and NOT as part of a filtering mechanism. The registrars do not
want
>to have any say in the creation of the list because of potential liability
>issues. They like the idea of WIPO creating the list because it is an
>inter-governmental agency that cannot be sued. Therefore immunity starts
>with the creation of the list and they are further insulated if ICANN
>mandates it upon registration authorities.  However, the Registrars are
>sensitive to the Non-commercial and free speech concerns and have
>preliminarily backed excluding charter non-commercial top-level domains
from
>this sunrise program.  Therefore their concerns should be addressed. The
>concerns of the small businesses should also be protected if WIPO uses
>discretion in creating the list in a responsible manner, which there is no
>reason to believe that they shouldn't.

I'm sorry, but we've seen that WIPO cannot use discretion.  Their
tortured "logic" in the UDRP proves that they will go where the money
is, on behalf of trademark owners, whose property they are mandated
by charter to protect (specifically leaving out domain name holders
as equal intellectual property interests.  I spoke with them
regarding this multiple times over several years, and still there is
no change).

I also do not feel that registrars adequately protect the rights of
users to free speech, small business, etc.  This is not an
appropriate solution and an inappropriate conflict of interest.

>
>I understand that this insight is less than ideal to several people on this
>list, but at least it is an effort among certain constituencies to put
aside
>past differences and move toward a common ground. I will be the first to
>admit that the final outcome of famous trademarks and new top-level domains
>will be far from satisfactory for most if not all people. In fact, if the
>job is done right no one will be happy, but it will be a solution that we
>all can live with.
>

There is very little common ground here I am afraid.  The trademark
lawyers already have pushed through a UDRP, the "anti-cybersquatting
act" and various other laws that already protect them far more than
is warranted.  And no, this is not a solution we all can live with.
This is a solution that registrars and trademark lawyers can live
with.  Non commercial and free speech interests, small businesses,
and individual users will not be able to live with this.