[bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
George, I'm with you on the need for the approach to be one which is well-balanced between trademark protection on the one hand, and on the entrepreneurship, innovation and creativity which fuel the blossoming of the web on the other. But I do not find it either surprising nor sinister that whatever good thinking may advance in the IRT world re new gTLDs could have both roots and eventual bearing on the world of existing TLDs. In fact, I would find it surprising were these two be divorced universes.... cheers/Rick Rick Anderson EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx cell: (403) 830-1798 office: (403) 750-5535 ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thu Jun 25 07:10:35 2009 Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT Hello, Just in case anyone had any doubts that the IRT is ultimately intended for existing gTLDs too, see the article at Computerworld: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=Networking+and+Internet&articleId=9134605&taxonomyId=16&pageNumber=5 "Unfortunately, the proposal applies only to new GTLDs when it's the existing ones that cause the biggest problems, Metalitz says. Even if every recommendation is adopted for the new GTLDs, getting the same rules applied to existing domains like .com will be tough, he adds. "The problem is, you have entrenched interests that are resistant to change," he says. However, ICANN may be able to apply the new rules as existing registrar contracts expire, Levins says. "We may be able to retrofit the features that are in the new GTLD agreements to address abuse." (that's from page 5 of the article) I disagree with Steve Metalitz that people are resistant to change. The key is that the change must be for the better, a "win-win", and that's currently not on the table via the IP Constituency's one-sided and unbalanced proposals. Lynn Goodendorf (mentioned in the article) was in the live chatroom yesterday during the public session (well, yesterday in my timezone), and she was responsive to the suggestions folks like myself were making (e.g. limiting the URS to only newer domains below a certain age, as that's where most of the abuse was for her company). I think there's a disconnect between the members of the IRT, who took on very extreme positions, and the "average Joe Markholder", who would have been just as happy with a more reasonable and balanced proposal, one that responsible registrants would have supported. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address. Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.