[wg-c] RE: working group c meeting

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

Ken,
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Why do we need a conference call
that all WG members can attend? Surely we can discuss this on the list.
Personally, I am concerned that there is an attempt by POC/CORE to 'capture'
the new gTLD process. If the Chair (Javier, who we all know has been very
bound up with this since the beginning) is proposing what amounts to the
POC/CORE gTLD set as the WG's proposals, then it is very pertinent to
examine whether there are Trademark issues. As it would be with any proposed
gTLDs. 
As you probably realise, my view is that the WG should propose a method for
bringing new gTLDs into use, not an actual set of new gTLDs.
The fact that the Chair seems to be happy to propose a POC/CORE set of gTLDs
without any thought whatsoever as to how these relate to any further gTLDs
and that CORE itself does not make any comment on this choice, causes me
great concern.
It would be very useful if you could set out CORE's position and view on new
gTLDs publically on the list.

Ivan

> i am not ducking your question but this is an item along with 
> some other
> brought up recently which we could better explore & "vet" out 
>  in a conf
> call (we could
> "minute"  the call & post to the list  if members wished as well)
> what about the idea of considering  a conf call for the wg 
> and hashing out
> some of these issues. i am on a plane right now and unable to fwd this
> message to the wg... would you fwd the message please and see 
> if we can get
> some comments from the group.
> 
> thanks
> 
> ken
> i believe core would assist on subsidizing the call as long 
> as wg  members
> felt comfortable with that. (if any company,group, or 
> individual wants to
> kick in to help defray the cost thats great with me too !!!)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>
> To: 'Ken Stubbs' <kstubbs@dninet.net>
> Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 7:05 AM
> Subject: RE: gTLD Trademark Applications
> 
> 
> >Well, Javier proposed that the CORE/POC seven names be 
> proposed to the DNSO
> >as the first set of gTLDs. And I said I thought that CORE 
> had applied for
> >Trademarks on them (in other words, making them even more a 
> CORE set of
> >names). But no-one seems to know if CORE has, so I thought we should
> clarify
> >the situation.
> >So I asked you. It's a Working Group and we are addressing 
> the question.
> >Chris Ambler is quick to assert his claims on .web, for 
> example, which as a
> >bearing.
> >So, I hope you can help us.
> >Thanks,
> >Ivan
> >
> >> what bearing does it have on the working group ivan ?
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>
> >> To: 'Ken Stubbs' <kstubbs@dninet.net>
> >> Cc: 'wg-c@dnso.org' <wg-c@dnso.org>
> >> Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 5:24 AM
> >> Subject: gTLD Trademark Applications
> >>
> >>
> >> >Ken,
> >> >It has been suggested (by me) that CORE has applied for
> >> Trademarks on the
> >> >CORE/POC 'seven' gTLDs. I am sure I read this recently.
> >> >As this has a lot of bearing on the Working Group, could you
> >> clarify the
> >> >situation. Namely, has CORE or does CORE intend to apply for
> >> Trademarks on
> >> >any gTLDs?
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Ivan
> >> >
> >>
> >
> 
>