RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- 5-July call
- To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- 5-July call
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:06:57 -0400
Not touching the "destroy-resist-apply" point.
When the IPC worked on its statement, there was a lot of discussion
about whether we should be advocating for SR beyond .brand. Ultimately,
we decided to limit our recommendation to .brand because we're the IPC
and that's our purview.
It's worth noting that ICANN Board members and staff have publicly
touted - and especially to the trademark community - the .brand model as
the solution to cybersquatting and fraud. Many in the trademark
community believe that the success of that model depends on which they
can control it. The SR exception is viewed as the best way to do that.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:10 PM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams
Cc: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items -- 5-July
Although I agree with you and your message that there are more
things to resolve than to focus on SR, I think that we can't pause it
because SR solutions, at very least for brands, has to be sorted in the
whole process so that brands who are shifting from ""destroy" to
"resist" and on their way to "apply" as a stance on new TLDs don't
revert back to their first mode and crush the momentum it seems like we
have from the board and community on new TLDs.
I am not suggesting in any way that ONLY brands deserve SR. I
am suggesting that there should be some way forward for brands to see a
compatibility with their models (vis a vis SR) as a product of our
Additionally, there are interdependances that need to remain in
focus with how an SR scenario would fit in within the framework of other
exceptions to Board/DAGv3 this group produces.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
anything else on your minds that you'd like
included in the agenda?
Well, I for one would like dropping the SR nonsense into
a deep hole until after we've succeeded in solving non-edge cases like
whether we're going to eliminate all current registries, or eliminate
all current registrars, from all real application types, or simply
sprinkle magic pixie dust on all things integrated and wonderful and let
Dog, the Market, and a historically under-resourced compliance function
sort out what might benefit the consumers, if we could differentiate the
few new gTLD consumers from the 100 million or so legacy gTLD consumers.