| Bret Fausett Budget (5/26/99 10:21:08 AM, #234) (Message has been read to the assembled group) What are ICANN's legal needs that require over 20% of the corporation's budget to be devoted to this service? |
| Ken Stubbs Internet Council Of Registrars (CORE) GTLD Constituancy (5/26/99 10:26:06 AM, #235) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) NSI is currently a "designated monopoly" during the transition period in which its monoploly is to be replaced by a competitive system. during this transition period, it is inconceivable that the monopoly holder should be allowed to fill, or nominate, all three names council seats of this constituancy. there is a serious need for policy guidance on how to end the monopoly and move to a "competitive system". to allow the monopolist to have an unfair and truly disproportionit share of the votes on how to end its economic advantage is entirely irrational. NSI should be limited to one seat on the names council. when there are additional gtld'sin the future then the other two seats should be open to an election process to be determined. |
| Patrick O'Brien DOmainz Regional Regsitries (5/26/99 10:52:56 AM, #236) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is the Board considering introduction of a REGISTRY--REGISTRAR concept in realtion to the regional IP Regsitries? If so, when |
| Kent Crispin registrars (5/26/99 10:59:18 AM, #237) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Is NSI formally accredited as an accredited registrar? |
| Kent Crispin capture (5/26/99 11:57:22 AM, #240) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Capture is a very significant concern, and large numbers of members is a neccessary, but not a sufficient, guarantee against it. Other mechanisms *must* be implemented. It is in my opinion very important to proceed slowly, and with constant review. |
| Sue Leader ISOCNZ MAC Recommendation on membership (5/26/99 12:09:01 PM, #241) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The audio is sporadic here, but if I heard correctly, there is a recommendation from MAC that the Membership should *not* have the right to change the By-Laws. If the members do not have the right to change the constitution of the organisation then they lack the most basic right of membership of any organisation (normally done via AGM or SGM). I would view with concern any suggestion that such a basic right were to be removed. A clarification would be appreciated. |
| Robert Hanke callisto germany.net MAC (5/26/99 12:21:58 PM, #242) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) What kind of people do you basically want to gather as members? |
| Kent Crispin songbird geographical diversity (5/26/99 2:32:40 PM, #247) The earlier drafts of the DNSO bylaws dealt in great detail with this issue, and came up with a complex, but fair method. It should be looked at again. |
| PAVAN DUGGAL THE CYBERLAW ASSOCIATION WHY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST POTENTIAL CANDIDATES (5/26/99 2:45:30 PM, #249) (Message has been read to the assembled group) (in-room) THE PROPOSED POLICY IS VERY LAUDATORY.BUT IT STATES THAT A PERSON WHO STANDS FOR A REGIONAL POOL CANNOT STAND FOR ELECTIONS FOR THE POST OF DIRECTOR FOR THE GLOBAL POOL.THIS IS VERY DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST THE POTENTIAL CANDIDATE.THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ADOPTING THIS STAND.THERE IS GOING TO BE ONLY ONE ELECTON,BARRING THE FIRST POSSIBLE PROPOSED STAGGERED ELECTION.A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAND FOR BOTH THE REGIONAL AND GLOBAL POOL SIMULTANEOUSLY.DEPRIVING THE POTENTIAL CANDIDATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST UNCONDITIONALLY IS ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE BY THE COURT.THE POLICY FOR GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONSHOULD NOT TREAD UPON OR LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE MEMBER TO STAND FORBOTH REGIONAL AND WORLD POOLS |
| Karl Auerbach Cisco Systems (5/26/99 2:49:51 PM, #250) Why is the CEO fee set at the $100,000(US) level? --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Network Democracy (5/26/99 2:52:08 PM, #251) To: Esther, Dennis and meeting participants -- Could you please comment about the desire among many of us for a more openly democratic process in taking the DNS decisions that will effect everyone on the planet? And, could you please remark on the idea of a global Internet constitutions with a clear bill of rights and responsibilities? P.S. Esther -- Nice job on Charlie Rose show. |
| Bret Fausett DNSO Constituencies (5/26/99 3:02:02 PM, #252) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am concerned that some of the constituency proposals submitted to the Interim Board allow membership only for trade organizations. As a remote participant, I am not certain where these proposals are after yesterday, but I would encourage the Board to reject any proposal that makes trade organizations the sole members in any constituency. Individuals, companies, owners of trademarks and other IP are more than capable of representing themselves, without being filtered through organizational bodies. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD DNSO (5/26/99 3:13:14 PM, #256) Again, I ask for clarification... Is there a requirement for a gTLD constituency to be an EXISTING gTLD registry for inclusion? |
| Robert Hanke callisto germany.net gTLD constituency (5/26/99 3:16:33 PM, #257) (in-room) Two seats of the seats to the Names Council to be left vacant until further gTLD registries join this constituency. It simply cannot be the case, that a single entity, furthermore being still gTLD monopolist, appoints three seats to the Names Council. |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Noncommercial Domain Owners (5/26/99 3:20:24 PM, #258) All panelists -- Do you feel the proposals now being discussed at the meeting adequately represents those without a financial stake in DNS registration? If not, what can be done to make the process more democratic? Thank y. |
| Jon Zittrain gTLD constituency (5/26/99 3:22:01 PM, #259) (in-room) For Don T-- 1/ Have the stewards of .mil, .gov, .int, and .arpa been approached about, or indicated any interest in, participating in the gTLD constituency? Does it make sense to have them involved, or does their "closed" nature suggest they don't belong? Would they be welcome if they were interested? 2/ What's the current status of .edu? |
| Karl Auerbach Cisco Systems Statement from Ellen Rony (5/26/99 3:22:28 PM, #260) This posted on behalf of Ellen Rony (who is having computer troubles this very early morning in California). From: Ellen Rony "There are many reasons to put the brakes on the WIPO Final Report and defer any decisions on the recommendations therein. Not the least of these is ICANN's own Bylaws. >From Article VI, Section 2 (c) The Board shall refer proposals for substantive policies not received from a Supporting Organization to the Supporting Organization, if any, with primary responsibility for the area to which the proposal relates for initial consideration and recommendation to the Board. ICANN's primary responsibility right now is to set up the structure of the corporation, so that complex and controversial proposals such as those discussed in the WIPO Final Report can receive the careful consideration they deserve at the DNSO level first. Ellen Rony, AOAJ Co-author, The Domain Name Handbook Signatory to the petition to ICANN and the DOC, posted at www.domainhandbook.com/petition-0599.html |
| Kent Crispin songbird NCC (5/26/99 3:24:48 PM, #261) (Message has been read to the assembled group) The committee proposed by Milton is *not* balanced -- the ACM-IGC is a 4 person committee that was just constituted; the ICIIU is a fake organization. It would be ludicrous to try to "balance" them with the many real organizations signed up on the ISOC web site. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Milton (5/26/99 3:28:56 PM, #262) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Milton Mueller's comments regarding constituency involvement are quite appropriate. Further open participation (and especially for a gTLD DNSO) is not a trivial facade, but an absolute necessity for any meaningful representation. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Consituencies! (5/26/99 3:34:59 PM, #263) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I do not want to be a member of a constituency. Yet, ICANN and the DNSO are telling me and everyone else "you can not participate as an individual". That is a denial of the basic premises of the White Paper. The creation of a constituency for individuals, inadequate as a step as it is to repair the basic unfairness created by the constituency approach, is an absolute necessity. --karl-- |
| Mikki Barry DNRC individual constituency (5/26/99 3:36:23 PM, #264) (Message has been read to the assembled group) Individuals make up, by far, the largest single group on the Internet. ICANN may fundamentally change the face of the Internet from one of information and communication, directly impacting individual uses of the Internet. Even now, the vast majority of traffic on the Internet is non commercial by individuals. The fact that a constituency to represent them even needs to be justified is remarkable to me. Each other constituency is for special interests. This constituency for individuals is possibly the MOST important. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Eloquent Argument? (5/26/99 3:40:51 PM, #265) The matter of individuals in the DNSO is not a mere "eloquent argument", it is a necessity. The mere fact that individual membership has to come forth before the entire board and justify itself is a strong indication that ICANN is on the wrong path. This is not a matter that needs debate. ICANN is giving strong signals that individuals are lower than second class citizens of the Internet. --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird Individual constituency in dnso (5/26/99 3:42:11 PM, #266) The primary argument against one is, as noted, that there will be an at-large membership of ICANN itself. This is a strong argument. But also, it must be considered that there is no restriction on membership on the General Assembly. This is non-voting membership, to be sure, but it certainly is a place where a position can be presented and argued. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Individuals (5/26/99 3:46:11 PM, #267) The DNSO is the locus of policy on Domain Names. The Board, and thus the general membership, has very little power to overturn DNSO based policies. Therefore, in order to give individuals a voice in Domain Name matters, it is necessary under the ICANN structure to have an individual constituency in the DNSO. --karl-- |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET Mike's comments (5/26/99 3:47:02 PM, #268) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I believe a primary concern from many about the "stacking of the deck" to which Mike refers is the perception that it is being stacked in a predetermined manner to fit the will of the board and certain commercial interests. The general perception of stacking is likely unavoidable due to the nature of the issues. It is not the stacking, but the manner which is in question. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC "deck stacking" (5/26/99 3:49:25 PM, #269) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I find it rather interesting that the idea of "deck stacking" is coming up given how many constituencies are dominated by singular groups such as POC/CORE, INTA, etc. Individuals SHOULD and MUST have representation. |
| Kent Crispin songbird stacking the deck (5/26/99 3:51:05 PM, #270) Large numbers are *not* a guarantee against stacking the deck. |
| Bret Fausett Individual Domain Name Holders (5/26/99 3:51:48 PM, #271) I raise my remote hand in favor of an individual domain name holder constituency. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Take that vote again (5/26/99 3:53:14 PM, #272) There was a call for a show of hands for the individual constituency. To be fair, there must be a similar show of hands for support for each of the other constituencies and any lack of unanimity should be construed in the same for as it was for the individual constituency. --karl-- |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/99 3:53:18 PM, #273) We must have representation of individuals. The net grew through the efforts of individuals. Simple answer is do not allow anyone who has any commercial interest to stand for committee. There are plenty of us who never have and probably never will have any commercial interest in the WWW. |
| Kent Crispin songbird minority interests (5/26/99 3:54:06 PM, #274) The rights of minorities are of course important, but tyranny of the minority is also clearly a significant problem. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC please take the remote comments (5/26/99 3:54:19 PM, #275) Before the idea of individual constituencies is left, PLEASE take the remote comments. Many who support the individual constituency did not have the resources to come to Berlin. Don't discount their support. |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine IDNO Constituency (5/26/99 3:55:34 PM, #276) Your straw pole a moment ago on IDNO (1/3 for, 1/3 agains, 1/2 undecided) should not be construed as a carte blanche for the ICANN board to do what it wants. Please beware of hubris. Joop's strong statements express the views of many individuals, like myself, who fear being steamrollered by the commercial interests trying to strike it rich in the cyberspace land rush. By the principles of natural law, we deserve a voice! |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET TLDA (5/26/99 3:55:41 PM, #277) The Top Level Domain Association has proposed a model which would work well with the stricture now placed upon the gTLD DNSO constituency. The TLDA has proposed an open and participatory structure which would provide 2 NC representatives in conjunction with the NSI nominated representative. It is appropriate for NSI to have a representative on the NC. It is equally appropriate for there to be non-NSI representation in the gTLD DNSO in the same time frame. Vaulting the additional NC positions would only ensure a single voice for gTLD's, namely NSI. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law Sample Bias (individual members) (5/26/99 3:57:24 PM, #278) I don't find it odd that the people who are able to attend in Berlin are not the group most wild about indivdual representation. I would imagine that the individual who cannot attend -- because they don't have an organization to pay their travel -- might feel rather differently. So I am very uncomfortable with the Chair's conclulsion that the 1/3 1/3 1/3 split is a mandate for the Board to make a choice of its own. I personally do not have a view on whether there must be an indivdual constituency as such. I am concerned that individuals be represented in a meaningful way. It is also important that individual membership not swamp the non-commercial group, which I think will be the natural home of, e.g. educational institutions (which have very different issues and concerns). One might, in the long run, find that the Board itself represents individuals sufficiently, but that may have to await the formation of the Initial Board, and the final version of the selection procedures for that body. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Answer to Richard Sexton's question (5/26/99 4:00:35 PM, #279) The various prospective TLDs can go to the commercial constituency; the ISP constituency; or non-commercial. The constituencies cannot be precise, otherwise there will be hundreds. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC summaries of the remote comments (5/26/99 4:01:48 PM, #280) Taking only sumamries of the remote comments negates their impact. Each person at the microphone was given at least 2 minutes. Most of our remote comments, taken as a whole, are STILL under 2 minutes long. Please don't sumamrize them. Read them as sent. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Constituencies are wrong (5/26/99 4:03:18 PM, #281) The discussion is very clearly indicating that constituencies are a failed experiment. The failure is obvious by the mere fact that your statements have relegated me to having no voice in the DNSO. Scrap constituencies and resume a structure in which the DNSO is composed soly of individuals -- individuals who represent companies, individuals who hold trademarks, individuals who are just individuals. They can then form fluid coalitions with the flex and flow of issues. --karl-- |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Substantive or not? (5/26/99 4:04:11 PM, #282) Esther has said that there are no substantive comments to be read out at present. If that is the case - why is the SUBSTANTIVE comments page full to bursting? |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET TLDA (5/26/99 4:04:37 PM, #284) Richard Sexton asked a very clear and concise question. The TLDA is a legitimate constituency with an appropriate right for recognition. This needs to be addressed now, in Berlin. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Substantive or not? (5/26/99 4:04:43 PM, #285) Esther has said that there are no substantive comments to be read out at present. If that is the case - why is the SUBSTANTIVE comments page full to bursting? |
| Bret Fausett Trade Organizations as Members (5/26/99 4:07:18 PM, #286) The comment board shows that my comment below was read. I don't believe that it was. Did I just miss it? ======================= DNSO Constituencies (5/26/99 3:02:02 PM, #252) (Message has been read to the assembled group) I am concerned that some of the constituency proposals submitted to the Interim Board allow membership only for trade organizations. As a remote participant, I am not certain where these proposals are after yesterday, but I would encourage the Board to reject any proposal that makes trade organizations the sole members in any constituency. Individuals, companies, owners of trademarks and other IP are more than capable of representing themselves, without being filtered through organizational bodies. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Sunset on constituencies (5/26/99 4:08:54 PM, #287) DNSO constituencies should have a sunset provision ... once a year they should expire. And once a year they should have to re-apply for existance. --karl-- |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD DNSO (5/26/99 4:13:04 PM, #288) Again, there is the appearance of duality in the ICANN Board approach. While there is a genuine effort to make certain that disparate groups (such as for the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders) to work together toward compromise, there is no such concern for the gTLD DNSO. I propose either the addition of the TLDA as an additional gTLD Constituency, or the mandate of a compromise effort between NSI and the TLDA. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/99 4:19:53 PM, #290) I would asked to have minuted the fact that even remote participation in this conference is a costly exercise for individuals in countries where online time is charged by the minute. There is bound to be a bias in representation from countries where Internet access is free. |
| Mikki Barry Another Arrogant Juvenile Mockery of the online comments (5/26/99 4:25:46 PM, #293) This is utterly outrageous. Online commentary has just been relegated to the "end" when the threads have been lost. Our comments have essentially been neutralized and ignored. |
| Dan Steinberg Synthesis: Law & Technology WIPO (5/26/99 4:32:39 PM, #294) First, Just a reminder that the White Paper request to WIPO was much more narrowly drafted than WIPO's self-imposed mandate. It is unclear why we should be even considering the report. If I went into a restaurant and asked for a salad, but got a salad, steak and dessert delivered to my table. I would be displeased. I would be even more displeased if the waiter (no matter how politely) asked me to *pay* for it. Second, the fact that the DNSO does not yet exist should not in itself be reason to move forward rather than defer the issue. It is only in the case of a real perceived emergency that such a course of action would be appropriate. Is there an emergency? I think not. I think, to use Becky Burr's terminology that 'the trains are on time'. So I reiterate the need to defer all action on the WIPO report to the eventual DNSO. I do this recognizing that I may not like the eventual DNSO. But I would rather be arguing in the right *courtroom*, whether I win, lose or draw. And I would rather not be arguing about it, but if I must... Thank you |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine Distribute copies of Online Comments at Meeting (5/26/99 4:33:45 PM, #295) Since time does not allow you to share aloud all of the "substantive" comments filed online by those of us unable to attend the Berlin meeting, please printout and photocopy all of these comments for on-site distribution at the end of the meeting to the ICANN board and the others there. Thank you. Also, please archive these comments along with the scribe notes for future reference, perhaps at the Berkman website. Thank you again. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC WIPO process (5/26/99 4:42:26 PM, #296) Despite the length of time this has been debated, there has still been no consensus on even whether there should BE a mandatory alternative dispute policy across all gTLDs. This proves that until such consensus on whether the policy should exist, whether it should be across all gTLDs, and whether it should be mandatory and uniform, this should not be implemented. Further, there has not been time for substantive comment to be provided regarding this policy. The ICANN bylaws prohibit the unelected board from making this decision. It needs to go through the DNSO. Bottom-up is the mandate. Francis Guerry has just mentioned that the WIPO process "protects minors." Please tell us where, in any mandate or request from a government, anyone brought up "protection of minors?" This is certainly not within WIPO's charter. There is no consensus on whether there even should BE a mandatory arbitration policy. There is definitely no consensus on what should be IN that policy. |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO Report (5/26/99 4:48:26 PM, #297) I would add my applause to that whch followed Francis Currie's report. The compelling reason for adopting the WIPO recommendations without delay were set out in his last sentence: we are in danger of having to grapple in the future with the problem of reconciling diverse dispute resolution processes. The WIPO recommendations were arrived at after a lengthy and transparent public consultation process, open to all. More importantly, they are eminently sensible approach to safeguarding the future of the internet. IFPI representing the worldwide recording industry (over 1200 members in 78 countries) urges the ICANN Board to adopt the recommendations. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of Law/WIPO "public interest rep." WIPO (5/26/99 4:48:54 PM, #298) As noted in the conclusion to my report at http://personal.law.miami.edu/~amf/commentary.htm: 1. Several key parts of the Final Report are new or substantially different from the Interim Report. In particular, the definition of cybersquatting is wholly new, and the Annexes are so new they were never even shown to the advisory Experts group. As a result, key concepts and suggestions have yet to be exposed to public comment and debate. 2. Much of the WIPO proposal requires a leap into relatively uncharted territory. For example we have almost no experience with they type of online international business-to-business and especially business-to-consumer arbitration proposed in the Final Report. As a result, ICANN's ultimate adoption of any of these proposals should be hedged with some type of "sunset" clause which would force a regular review of the outcome of its decisions. It is also critical to note that the Annexes [the part Icann is asked to adopt] differ materially from the body of the report It is also critical to note that the Annex IV contemplates giving a registrant 10 days to file entire defense to cybersquatting charge FROM DATE OF EMAIL of complaint. Not only is a requirement of actual notice a basis of most civilized legal system, but an attempt to impose a contractal scheme that lacked it would not be enforceable under the consumer law of many countries. In any case, how many people can find, retain, instruct a laywer in 10 days and assemble their entire defense in that time (minus time to actually *read* the email...) |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO Report (5/26/99 4:49:08 PM, #299) I would add my applause to that whch followed Francis Currie's report. The compelling reason for adopting the WIPO recommendations without delay were set out in his last sentence: we are in danger of having to grapple in the future with the problem of reconciling diverse dispute resolution processes. The WIPO recommendations were arrived at after a lengthy and transparent public consultation process, open to all. More importantly, they represent an eminently sensible approach to safeguarding the future of the internet, and avoiding damaging disputes. IFPI representing the worldwide recording industry (over 1200 members in 78 countries) urges the ICANN Board to adopt the recommendations. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual (5/26/99 4:50:42 PM, #300) Francis We are seeing some companies (sun microsystem - datacenter.com - (moviebuff, etc.)) in recent times...where it gives rise to The situation of someone trademarking an existing domain name string and going after the domain name registrant. What does WIPO say on this issue ? Can we - the domain name registrants hope to see some mechanism like the arbiraty process where domain name registants can stop someone gaining trademark rights on existing domain names that do not belong to them. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual domain name vs. trademark (5/26/99 4:50:56 PM, #301) Francis We are seeing some companies (sun microsystem - datacenter.com - (moviebuff, etc.)) in recent times...where it gives rise to The situation of someone trademarking an existing domain name string and going after the domain name registrant. What does WIPO say on this issue ? Can we - the domain name registrants hope to see some mechanism like the arbiraty process where domain name registants can stop someone gaining trademark rights on existing domain names that do not belong to them. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC - Arrogant Juveniles We DID add substantive comments (5/26/99 4:55:27 PM, #302) I am personally insulted by Mike Roberts contention that the signatories of the petition asking the board to defer the deliberations on the WIPO process did not offer substantive comments. 1) Most of us provided detailed and lengthy comments to WIPO itself. Many of which were ignored. 2) Most of us have had less than 3 weeks to read AND begin writing comments regarding substantive issues of the final report. 3) The most important issue here is "Who Decides" not what is decided. This sets the stage for ALL of the rest of the decisions made by ICANN. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Prudence is neither arrogant nor juvenile (5/26/99 5:03:26 PM, #303) I am concerned that the temporary president of ICANN once more writes off and insults those of us who believe that the WIPO proposal needs long study and should not be adopted until well reviewed by the internet community. As was seen, even in yesterday's DNSO meeting, one heavily attended by intellectual property interests and specialists, there were many, possibly a large majority, who do not yet understand the report. Asking review by the entire Internet community is neither arrogant nor juvenile. Rather it is simply common sense prudence. --karl-- |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Third level domains (5/26/99 5:04:20 PM, #304) How does the WIPO report purport to handle anonymous registrations at the third level of domain names? --karl-- |
| Srikanth Narra Individual domain name vs. trademarks (5/26/99 5:05:34 PM, #305) WIPO does not create a fair level field between trademark holders (with there literally unlimited resources) and domain name holders (with extremely limited resources). Exactly how many reverse hijacking cases has WIPO considered... More precisely how many unnevering letters, if any - that never came to the point of being a 'case' has WIPO considered ? |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Holder domain name vs. trademarks (5/26/99 5:06:04 PM, #306) WIPO does not create a fair level field between trademark holders (with there literally unlimited resources) and domain name holders (with extremely limited resources). Exactly how many reverse hijacking cases has WIPO considered... More precisely how many unnevering letters, if any - that never came to the point of being a 'case' has WIPO considered ? |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET gTLD Registries (5/26/99 5:07:26 PM, #307) As there is only one gTLD registry being recognized at this time, what is the ICANN plan and time frame for the accreditation/acceptance of additional gTLD registries? Is this a matter to be taken up by the gTLD DNSO (thereby furthering the monopoly that NSI now holds)? This thread would further the argument that additional representation in the gTLD DNSO is an absolute necessity now, not later, |
| Kent Crispin songbird uniformity (5/26/99 5:09:48 PM, #308) The real issue here is not the details of the WIPO report -- the issue is the adoption of a uniform policy. The WIPO policy may not be perfect, but no policy can be perfect. The WIPO policy can modified and evolved. The new registrars need a uniform policy from which to work. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET WIPO Dispute Resolution (5/26/99 5:13:00 PM, #309) In the light that there has been substantive legal precedent regarding the resolution of Domain Name Disputes, there is serious question as to the value of a formal dispute resoltution mechanism. Such a device would only occupy more resources and promote the potential of conflict between the resolution mechanism and local or national legal bodies. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Domain Name vs. TradeMark Issue (5/26/99 5:15:56 PM, #310) WIPO is not the way to solve to the issue of domain name vs. trademark issue. It however makes a good start for a evolution of a mechanism. ICANN board should take WIPO as such. and Commence its own process (request for prosopals/comments) to arrive at the domain name vs. trademark resolution mechanism. |
| Karl Auerbach Ancient and Honorable Order of Arrogant Juveniles Cybersquatting (5/26/99 5:16:14 PM, #311) Please stop use of the word "cybersquatting". It is conclusionary -- it is a shorthand saying that the person accused is guilty without benefit of a trial or inquiry into the facts. Speculation, in land, securities, commodities, etc is an honorable thing in most cultures. Ownership of a domain name for speculative purposes is not intrinsically different than speculation for land or securities. So why does the WIPO report treat it differently? We must ask the WIPO proponents why they complain about losing to a domain name speculator but simply accept that the next office building they may occupy was built by a land speculator? Similarly, one must ask the WIPO proponents, why they defer to other mark holders while automatically placing a non-mark holder into a pejorative category by calling that person a "squatter"? --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird procedural safeguards (5/26/99 5:16:42 PM, #312) The WIPO Policy is just a statement; it's implementation is in policies of ICANN. Procedural safeguards for registrar policies exist in the structure of ICANN itself. The WIPO policies are not cast in concrete, and in fact they call for further study on many issues. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Contact Information. (5/26/99 5:18:48 PM, #313) As to privacy issue. The contact information should be taken offline completely. And made avaliable on the same lines as the credit information and report is kept and made avaliable in US. That should take care of all concerned. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of law the contribution of the academic community (5/26/99 5:18:59 PM, #315) I do not know which board member said the "academic community" had no substantive comments to make as he was not on camera. I suppose I qualify as part of that group....Would he please go on the record as to whether by this he means he did not read my report in response to either the interim report or the WIPO Final Report, or whether he considers it non-substantive? It is not a short report, but that of course does not indicate substance. But it does suggest it may not be read. |
| Michael Froomkin U.Miami School of law the contribution of the academic community (5/26/99 5:18:59 PM, #314) I do not know which board member said the "academic community" had no substantive comments to make as he was not on camera. I suppose I qualify as part of that group....Would he please go on the record as to whether by this he means he did not read my report in response to either the interim report or the WIPO Final Report, or whether he considers it non-substantive? It is not a short report, but that of course does not indicate substance. But it does suggest it may not be read. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Contact Information. (5/26/99 5:19:45 PM, #316) As to privacy issue. The contact information should be taken offline completely. And made avaliable on the same lines as the credit information and report is kept and made avaliable in US. That should take care of all concerned. The increasing amounts of spam mail I receive due to my e-mail being listed in whois database is incredible and frustrating. |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/99 5:21:43 PM, #317) Since famous names protection has been restricted to globally famous names - may we have a published list to refer to in order that prospective domain registrants can be sure that they will not run into problems. |
| Mikki Barry DNRC Privacy and the "whois" (5/26/99 5:24:33 PM, #318) As someone who has been stalked via the information in the "whois" database, I can tell you that there are significant issues, especially for small business users and individuals. Please consider that when creating mandatory disclosure policies. |
| Mike Edwards IFPI Secretariat WIPO (5/26/99 5:24:35 PM, #319) 1.Previous speakers have mentioned the importance of public access to contact details. This is a critically important issue not only for the purpose of protecting trademark rights, but also for protecting other intellectual property rights. Without such access, there will be no legal means for defending property rights. We take cognisance of the privacy issues dealt with in paragraph 86. We agree that this is an important issue that needs further examination. However, we do not feel that privacy claims should prevent the disclosure of the identity of the perpetrators of egregious, bad faith acts of piracy, simply by claiming that their activities are non-commercial. The criterion should be the impact of the activity on legitimate economic interests, not whether the activity is conducted for economic gain on the part of the perpetrator. 2. I think it is wishful thinking to think that cybersquatting will soon be a thing of the past. Predatory, bad faith trademark registrations of famous marks existed in all jurisdictions until international conventions provided a remedy. They still exist today in those jurisdictions where the conventions have not been acceded to. The WIPO proposals for an alternative dispute resolution process provide just the same sort of solution for the cyber world. |
| Karl Auerbach Degree of privacy protection (5/26/99 5:26:40 PM, #320) In the Reston IFWP meeting last July, there was strong agreeemnt that privacy should be governed by the EU privacy standards. Those are sensible standards. There is no reason to backtrack on that agreement. --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions Webzine WIPO Bias? (5/26/99 5:28:13 PM, #321) Esther duly voiced frustration about the lack of substantive comments on the WIPO report, with the bulk of remark from the floor directed at the timing of adoption. For the sake of substance, then, and at the risk of offense, may I point out that the emperor's "new clothes" appear to be the same old rags? Can it be that WIPO is not interested in the fair resolution of disputes according to some uniform and universal standard, perhaps, but instead is only interested in safeguarding the IP turf of its members? This would explain why a fair, reasonable global DN dispute policy is not yet being accepted. Indeed, it would be in the interest of WIPO to prevent such a global standard from being adopted. A deeply fractured system of DN dispute resolution generally favors those IP owners with deeper pockets, who can use this seeming chaos to effectively intimidate smaller stakeholders lacking a court a last resort. Threfore, I urge the ICANN board to maintain critical skepticism about the WIPO report, a mixed bag of blessings and curses. Think long-term and global. -- Ken Freed Media Visions P.S. This vital issue really should be the subject of a global vote, not the decision of one committee. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner WIPO arbitration from 3rd world countries view (5/26/99 5:29:27 PM, #322) Arbitration is so overly unfair if the domain name registrant is in 3rd world country and the accusor is in Western world. $3000 even $1500 is collosale amount to bear for a domain name registrant in this countries. Add to that lack of access to lawyers well versed in this issues in the said country. The process, if its being taken seriously by ICANN, should take this factors into considersation. The domain name registrant who cannot afford this process / a defense should be provided a defense in the arbitary process. Something onlines of what a goverment would provide a accused who cannot afford a lawyer. |
| Karl Auerbach WIPO didn't do its homeworkd (5/26/99 5:30:39 PM, #323) The WIPO report states what it believes the domain name system is. However, it didn't do it's homework. It's recital of domain name functionality was limited to essentially nothing more than the use of DNS to support the web. The DNS is much more. It is being used as a foundation for IP telephony, it is being proposed as a vehicle for the distribution of public key information, it is being used to route electronic mail, etc. There is a significant reason to believe that the WIPO analysis was made using an inadequate understanding of what the Domain Name System is and what it is used for. As such, there is substantial risk that adoption of the WIPO proposals could prejudice and encumber future growth of the Internet into areas other than the world wide web. --karl-- |
| Kent Crispin songbird WIPO (5/26/99 5:31:06 PM, #324) We have reached the point of diminshing returns on this topic: the same points are being repeated. The talk here is dwarfed by the work that has preceeded us. The WIPO process is not chopped liver, and we cannot possibly rehash that work here. If we delay this and pass it off to the DNSO we will simply continue the same arguments. We need to move forward and get something concrete in place, so we have something further to work with. |
| Gene Marsh anycastNET READ THE COMMENTS (5/26/99 5:36:30 PM, #325) The online participants have been here as long as the Berlin participants. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE COMMENTS TO THE GROUP! |
| Karl Auerbach Could NSI be more specific? (5/26/99 5:45:34 PM, #326) Could the NSI person (Mr. Johnson?) please describe exactly what information needs to be kept confidential? Is it crypto keys and the like? A list of specifics would probably be helpful. --karl-- |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Unrepresented Individual domain name owner (5/26/99 5:46:01 PM, #327) Sirs Coming from a third world country just getting on internet - one of the few who is fortunate enough to participate online in your proceedings... On behalf of innumerable population of individual domain name owners / aspirants - Please be more considerate of those who are unrepresented at this meeting. Its becoming really intimidating and sort of surreal from where we are - in a third world country with limited resources - money wise or even connections wise..that icann is even considering WIPO or people even think that complusory arbiration policy is in some manner 'fair' and affortable. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Security (5/26/99 5:46:02 PM, #328) David Johnson is blowing smoke. No security expert worth anything would use "security by obscurity" as a means of protecting a computer system. |
| Srikanth Narra Individual Domain Name Owner Protection for famous trademarks (5/26/99 5:50:59 PM, #329) In view of what the individual from American Trademark Association as pointed out..with Porsche case..using in rem action and the success they have been able to get with it. It would be prudent to drop the provisions for protection for "famous trademark" issue as suggested in the WIPO out completely. No need for ICANN to consider WIPO recommendations on this issue any more. |
| Kent Crispin songbird Technical Advisory Group (5/26/99 5:57:00 PM, #330) I also was asked to serve on the TAG, and declined for exactly the same reasons as John -- I was told by several lawyers that I would, essentialy, be terminally stupid to sign the non disclosure agreement. |
| Karl Auerbach Porsche (5/26/99 6:04:18 PM, #331) I might remind folks that Portia was Caeser's wife. So perhaps Ferry (sp?) Porche was usurping a well established use when he created his company. The question of what constitutes a "legitimate" right to a name is a difficult one, but the WIPO report simply uses it as a conclusion. --karl-- |
| Ken Freed Media Visions (5/26/99 6:05:04 PM, #332) Thank you for just announcing, Esther, that these comments are being copied and distributed to those at the meeting. Displaying them on the screen was a good step, and a separtate screen set aside for these online comments may be useful atthe Santiago meeting. Thank you all for being there! |
| Ken Freed Media Visions (5/26/99 6:05:34 PM, #333) Thank you for just announcing, Esther, that these comments are being copied and distributed to those at the meeting. Displaying them on the screen was a good step, and a separtate screen set aside for these online comments may be useful atthe Santiago meeting. Thank you all for being there! |
| Pat Crawford Private Individual Individual constituency (5/26/99 6:06:59 PM, #334) Someone should switch the mike off |
| Bret Fausett Priorities (5/26/99 6:29:21 PM, #335) What I heard after listening to all of today's meeting is that there are many involved in this process who are encouraging the Interim Board to slow down the membership process (with only 3 seats initially elected or holding elections only after thousands of members are assembled) but who also advocate rushing the WIPO report forward tomorrow. This places the priorities of the Interim Board in the wrong places. The Interim Board should concentrate on fully constructing this entity that will become ICANN and refer substantive decisions to the SOs and those who will be around for the long term. |
All times are Berlin (GMT +1)
This file is automatically generated.