Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

What Petter has said should, at this point, hardly require repetition.  I have
no doubt that if an answer to the question of how many, how fast, is required
in the absence of any other considerations, then the answer is zero, never.

It's because of this linkage that I do not believe that the polling process on
isolated issues is going to bear fruit.  What might work is the development of
draft statements which attract support and evolve over time.  Indeed, looking
back to the inception of this WG, I thought that would be our modus operandi,
especially given the timeframe within which we were charged with developing a
response.

It's also not surprising that the NC is inches away from proroguing this WG, though
in large part the failures of this group were inevitable from the start.

KJC

>>> "Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se> 09/03/99 09:33AM >>>
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 ;-))

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************