RE: [wg-b] Creation of Famous List

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> KathrynKL@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 4:42 PM
>
> Michael Palage wrote:
> >  Milton if you read the status report that I sent to the
> Names Counsel you
> >  will have found that WG-B has not officially backed the
> creation of a
> famous
> >  marks. However, if you look at the position papers

> Preface:  I think Michael is doing a good job of working to
> bring consensus
> to WG-B and that I am very glad that discussion has resumed
> on the list so
> that all can participate.

I tend to agree, kudos to Michael Palage. However, I have been aware of the
move to off-list discussion. I didn't like it and, even on invititation,
declined to participate. For one, I don't have the time ro follow a
fragmented discourse in multiple threads, especially one where I have to
setup another 20 filters to handle. This list is the official instrument and
I would wish that it be used as such.

> In the next few weeks, as Michael says, much work needs to be
> done.  WG-B has
> the hard task of to find a solution that is both consistent with the
> different needs of the Internet community -- and consistent with the
> protections and limitations of trademark law.  The ICANN
> Board made clear in
> Cairo that it is not looking to set new law.  Whatever WG-B
> proposes must be
> within that boundary.
>
> It is a hard task, but I think we can do it!

The issue is to not make new law. This would tend to support the prime facie
conclusion that our work is done and perforce, inconclusive. Here is a
Registry strategy that will probably be used;

1) Allow any and all registrations.
2) When two entities collide in law, point them to the nearest court of
comptetent jurisdiction.
3) Await results and follow court orders exactly, meanwhile ... business as
usual.

One implication of this is that, over time, both allowance and exclusion
lists will be built within each registry. In the case of new registries, the
victors simply have to enforce their court granted orders. Until then, the
registry continues. The real nasty part of this is that, depending on the
registry's jurisdiction, one could have multiple registries with conflicting
registration policies, in multiple jurisdictions. Certain types of
registrant would favour one registry over another, based on policy history
within that jurisdiction. Also, a registry stuck in an unfavorable policy
jurisdiction, would be helpless to do anything about it without physically
moving the business...to another, more favorable, jurisdiction. However,
this is an extant issue.