RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD string Reserved Names sub-group report

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

If you think you are going to want to submit a minority position if the
recommendations as proposed are agreed to by the full WG, please prepare
it and send it today so that it can be included in the report tomorrow.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:25 AM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD string Reserved Names sub-group report
> 
> Ray,
> 
> Thanks for your hard work, and my apologizes for not speaking 
> up sooner, however, as previously stated I have had my head 
> buried in the geographical/geopolitical subgroup.
> 
> I have some concerns about the proposed wording of a registry 
> operator being able to register its name during a sunrise 
> process, as this process is generally made available only 
> trademark holders. First this would appears to contradict the 
> previous opinion of Louis Touton, ICANN's former general 
> counsel. Please refer to the following letter from ICANN to 
> the GAC regarding a trademark application in connection with 
> a ccTLD, see 
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-letter-to-tarmizi-1
> 0feb03.htm
> There is also a restriction under US trademark law regarding 
> the mere registration of a TLD as a trademark, see 
> EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99, 
> http://www.uspto.gov/go/tac/notices/guide299.htm.
> 
> Now of course registries could probably find some favorable 
> national trademark authority to register their TLD as a 
> trademark, or to obtain a registration in another class as 
> many gTLD registry operators have already done, but I believe 
> establishing a rule that will only be gamed is not constructive.
> 
> I have consistently argued in various subgroups (IANA/ICANN, 
> Geographical/Geopolitical, gTLD string reservations) ICANN 
> should not be about conveying rights in gross to string 
> designations. Trademark law does not recognize such rights, 
> so I submit that unless a group claiming such rights can 
> establish a solid international legal basis for such rights, 
> ICANN should not recognize/codify them in their contracts.
> 
> This being said, I do have an objection about rouge registries.
> Specifically, registrants registering second level domains 
> that correspond to an existing TLD (ccTLD or gTLD) and then 
> providing registration services at the sub domain (3rd or 
> lower). I believe this practice can/should be banned/restricted.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ray Fassett
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD string Reserved Names sub-group report
> 
> 
> All:
>  
> Attached, please find the report from the gTLD Reserved Names 
> sub-group.
> The recommendation has changed materially from last week 
> based upon new, substantive feedback the sub-group has 
> received and teleconference discussion by sub-group members 
> this past Monday (1 sub-group member was not able to attend 
> the teleconference due to prior commitment).  There is not 
> unanimous opinion at this time by the 3 sub group members for 
> the recommendation contained.  2 of the 3 sub-group members 
> are in favor of the recommendation.
>  
> Thanks, 
>  
> Ray Fassett
> 
>