[wg-b] RE: NC Statement on new gTLDs

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

What in heaven's name does the Names Council's make-up have to do with the
Trademark Lobby's threat to destabilize the Internet?

Re:

"The trademark lobby must be placated because of its potential ability and
inclination to bankrupt new registrars and wreck havoc on their registrant
databases."
    Michael Palage, Chair Working Group B, at January 6, 2000 SBA Office of
Advocacy Roundtable on Internet Domain Names


Judith Oppenheimer
Member, Working Group B
Participant, January 6, 2000 SBA Office of Advocacy Roundtable on Internet
Domain Names



-----Original Message-----
From: Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 9:58 AM
To: 'Judith Oppenheimer'
Subject: RE: NC Statement on new gTLDs


The Names Council consists of 19 members only three of which represent the
intellectual property community.

-----Original Message-----
From: Judith Oppenheimer [mailto:joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 6:40 PM
To: joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com
Subject: NC Statement on new gTLDs


>The Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the
stability of the Internet.

Read:

"The trademark lobby must be placated because of its potential ability and
inclination to bankrupt new registrars and wreck havoc on their registrant
databases."
    Michael Palage, Chair Working Group B, at January 6, 2000 SBA Office of
Advocacy Roundtable on Internet Domain Names


>From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 6:12 PM
>To: council@dnso.org
>Cc: Pam Brewster
>Subject: [council] NC Statement on new gTLDs
>
>
>The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and
>related
>comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of
>new
>gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore
>recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the
>introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving
>due
>regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly
>registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use
>of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and
>(c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical
>operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole.
>
>Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we
>recommend
>to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be
>introduced
>initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level
>domains
>be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The
>Names
>Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report indicates that
>several types of domains should be considered in the initial
>introduction,
>these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top-
>level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal
>domains. Implementation should promote competition in the domain-name
>registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names
>Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability
>of
>the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new
>gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with
>organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards.
>
>To assist the Board in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names
>Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest
>from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an
>indication as to how they propose to ensure to promote these values.
>
>We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number
>of participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and
>want to thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the
>issues
>that were referred to them.  Recognizing the Working Group C has
>recently
>approved additional principles and that Working Group B's formal report
>was provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be
>providing supplemental recommendations in the near future.