Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] major points from today's call
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] major points from today's call
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 18:23:02 -0400
You're free to try and "begin the process of developing a single draft
recommendation" but you're stepping into the same mess Staff created
when they took the GNSO's recommendation, and the Board's resolution
at Paris, and turned that into a one-size-fits-all application process.
You have the additional self-imposed handicapped of being unable to
draft anything without first ensuring that the SR advocates, supported
by the dimmer lights on the Board who missed the
.tm-will-solve-cybersquatting discussion, held several times since
1998, get to flood the root with brands.
Years later and we don't have a single new registry, and there's no
shortage of "rational actors" who insist that no application may be
evaluated before their application.
I think compromise between the SR advocates is possible, even likely.
I think compromise between the no restrictions advocates is possible,
I think that compromise between the continuity advocates is possible,
However, compromise between any two of these, let alone all three, is
unlikely, perhaps not even possible, as fundamentally, there are
businesses who's plans will fail if the rule changes they advocate are
not obtained, and businesses who's plans will fail if the rule changes
they advocate are obtained.
I'm certain there will be two or more policy proposals offered to the
Council, and to the Board, and I'm assuming the outcome will be zero.