[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Sunrise Genealogy
Thanks for this helpful background document. There is a new "ecommerce
roundtable" in Washington, DC, and I attended the first meeting
yesterday. One IP lawyer said that on the issue of famous names, WIPO
had been trying to address this issue for many many years (outside of
the internation domain name context), but had never gotten anywhere. He
asked, what makes you think they will succeed here?
My question is about the more general background of famous names
proposals. Is it true that WIPO has been unable to reach international
consensus on this issue for decades? And is this relevant to our
discussions?
Jamie
"Michael D. Palage" wrote:
>
> The genesis of the Sunrise principles started approximately eight months ago
> when I came across an old legal article about the right of first refusal
> used during the expanse of the toll-free phone numbers here in the US. I am
> aware of the distinctions and how this right of first refusal was not
> extended to 877. Judith has provided valuable insight on this matter and for
> anyone interested please check the WG-B archives available at
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/maillist.html .
>
> Although the analogy is not all fours, I believed it provided a unique
> starting point to explore consensus building efforts. During the course of
> the next several months I spoke with numerous people about the concept of a
> Sunrise Period. Some of the people that I spoke with in person or over the
> phone included: Michael Froomkin, Ellen Rony, Carl Oppendale, Milton
> Mueller, Phil Sbarbaro, Kathy Klieman, Mikki Barry, Sarah Deutsch, Jim
> Bramson, Marilyn Cade, Mike Heltzer, Francis Gurry, Eric Menge, Lynne
> Beresford to name just a FEW. The reason that I saw some promise for the
> Sunrise concept was that most people did not shoot it down from the sky
> initially. Instead, they listened asked questions and THEN decided they had
> problems with it. For anyone involved in the ICANN process, this is actually
> a sign that there may be some common ground to advance upon.
>
> After talking to the various people I decided to submit a position paper
> during the position paper comment period. In summary my paper called for the
> creation of a famous marks list using a dual objective and subjective
> criteria, instead of the purely subjective criteria set forth in Chapter
> Four of the WIPO report. This decision was based upon the feedback from
> comment from the 50+ people that attended the LA ICANN meeting. Those mark
> holders appearing on the list would then be able to exercise a right of
> first refusal during a defined Sunrise period. My original position paper
> posted on Dec. 9, 1999 can be found at
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/msg00467.html .
>
> No one commented on my paper. Instead most of the attention turned to the
> Non-Commercial .TMK proposal and the Intellectual Property Constituency's
> (IPC) proposal that primarily backed the WIPO proposal.
>
> The Registrar Constituency of which I am member in addition to being its
> Secretariat, was concerned about some of the proposals that were being
> advanced by the IPC and other members with strong trademark interests. Their
> most pressing concern was the use of filters in connection with the
> registration process. The registrars then held a teleconference to
> formulate a registrar proposal to advance in Cairo. Some of the registrars
> expressed concern about ICANN's authority to back the commissioning of a
> universally famous marks list. Therefore, in an effort to appeal to the
> Non-Commercial constituency which vehemently opposed the creation of the
> famous marks list, backed a Sunrise program in which all registrars
> trademark could participate.
>
> This proposal was discussed on Tuesday evening Working Group B meeting in
> Cairo attended by approximately 80 people. This meeting lasted for two
> hours. The discussions of this meeting and the proposal in general where
> discussed on Wednesday to the NC and the GA. See the RealAudio archives
> available at
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/cairo/archive/
>
> Wednesday afternoon, a group of registrars and members of the IPC held a one
> hour cross-constituency meeting to discuss possible points of agreements. At
> that point in time, the IPC members in attendance expressed interest in my
> original Sunrise Proposal involving the creation of a list used in
> conjunction with a Sunrise period. After further consultation with the
> registrars in attendance, the registrars decided to publicly express an
> interest in a Sunrise period involving a WIPO created famous marks list.
> This gesture was an attempt to build consensus on some common ground. At
> this point in time no other constituency had approached the registrars with
> a potential compromise. Based upon the consensus reached between the IPC and
> the Registrars with regard to Working Group A and the UDRP, it made sense to
> explore other consensus building discussions.
>
> A week or so after the Cairo meetings, representatives of the IPC asked me
> in my capacity as Secretariat of the Registrars Constituency were the
> Registrars stood. I told the IPC representative that the Registrars were
> opposed to any ongoing filter based solutions and supported an equitable
> Sunrise proposal.
>
> With regard to the SBA - Office of Advocacy teleconferences. I have had
> detailed discussions with Eric Menge and his office since the LA meeting
> last year. I originally asked Eric if it was possible to host a
> teleconference for the benefit of those WG-B members that did not belong to
> a constituency that held formal teleconferences. Graciously enough and in
> the interest of small business the SBA hosted the two teleconferences this
> week. The SBA -Office of Advocacy has also provided me with written comments
> raising their concerns about various aspects of the Sunrise Proposal. This
> will be incorporated into the WG-B Interim report.
>
> Today I received the latest IPC proposal. I cannot discuss the specifics of
> this document because I was not involved in its drafting. However, I am
> happy to say that it seems to have built on the efforts of the last couple
> of months. Obviously, other people will disagree with this latest consensus
> building efforts. I respect these opinions and will properly note them in my
> WG-B report.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike Palage
> Your much maligned, unrelenting Working Group B Chair.
--
=======================================================
James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org
P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176
=======================================================