Re: [wg-b] Final Report

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>



> Listed below is the Final Report that I submitted to the Names Counsel.

I am not sure why the past tense is being used here.
Why not pass the report through the list for comment before submitting it?
The report contains at least one inaccuracy that could have been easily
corrected with the circulation of one draft version to the WG list.

To wit:

> The current Sunrise proposal being advanced by
> the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and a significant portion of
> the Registrar Constituency does not require the creation of such a list.
> This position appears to coincide with the Non-Commercial Constituency
that
> has vehemently opposed the creation of such a list.

This is misleading. The preponderance of opinion in the non-commercial
constituency is against BOTH a list AND sunrise plus anything. Your
statement implies that the constituency supports sunrise. It most
emphatically does not. If, as I suspect, this implication arises only from
bad phrasing, it could be easily corrected.

> (3) The protection afforded to trademark owners should depend upon the
type
> of top-level domains that are added to the root.
>
> Comments:  This consensus item is based upon the recognition in the
> Registrar and IPC proposals that this mechanism is probably not suitable
for
> every new top-level domain, especial certain non-commercial domains.
> However, this consensus item is conditioned on many tangential issues,
i.e.
> the scope of chartered gTLDs, the enforcement mechanism for charter, etc.
> Defining the procedures for classifying what constitutes a non-commercial
> top-level domain, is better left to another group. However, nothing in the
> consensus item should be construed as creating immunity from the UDRP or
> other legal proceeding should a domain name registrant in a charted
> top-level domain violate the charter or other legal enforceable rights.

A typo:
"...legally enforceable rights."


> Conclusion
>
> I regret to inform the Names Counsel that there does not appear to be
> consensus among the Working Group B participants as to the type of
mechanism
> that should be incorporated into the rollout of new top-level domains.
> However, I encourage the Names Counsel Representatives to review the
> proposals contained in my April 17, 2000 formal report.

Grrrrrr...
It's not nice to use one's position as chair to privilege one,s own
opinions.