RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

I second.
-----Original Message-----
From: Petter Rindforth [mailto:petter.rindforth@enderborg.se]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:34 AM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-c] Compromise proposal


Dear Jon,

Firstly, I would like to give you credit for your attempt to summarize
the discussion and to come up with a suggestion.

Secondly, however, I believe that you have missed the point with your
compromise proposal. I stated already in my introductury message of July
12 that we should start slowly with the introduction of 2-3 new gTLDs
and thereafter have an evaluation period. As I have said before, the
number shall then be possible to increase if necessary.

I also said there are many problems to be solved before any new gTLDs
can be introduced. One very important issue is the creation of a dispute
policy and the need to stop cybersquatting. I do not want to be part of
a system where trademark owners will have to register in all new gTLDs
just to protect themselves from infringers. 

I know that these matters are handled primarily by other WGs, but the
point is that we can not make any recommendations on new gTLDs and
forget about other closely related matters. In the compromise proposal,
you focus on the number of new gTLDs to be added to the DNS. IMHO, it is
not the number of new gTLDs that is the problem, but rather the
environment in which gTLDs (both those that currently exist and those
that might be added) are used:

_Before_ any new gTLDs can be introduced we must have
a) a speedy and effective dispute resolution process (preferably
mandatory)
b) a system for protecting famous and well-known trademarks across all
gTLDs, and
c) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact
information

(yes, I have said all this before)

If anyone can convince me that this can be made immediately with the
introduction of 6-10 or more new gTLDs, then I can live with this higher
number, but I strongly doubt.

It is important that this WG add the above (a-c) prerequisites to any
suggestions of new gTLDs.

The introduction must be made in a very controlled manner, and that's
why I am convinced that it has to be a few to begin with.

Regards,
Petter Rindforth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

Member of the INTA Internet Committee
Member of the FICPI CET Group 1
Chair, Trademarks Committee of the Association of Swedish Patent
Attorneys
Interim Chair of the Swedish Board for Domain Name Regulations
(the latter information added with reference to another discussion on
this list ;-))