RE: [gtld-council] proposed new Rec. #21

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

Milton,

My concern applies to both #3 and #21.  If my change in wording to #21
works, then maybe it should be applied to #3 as well.

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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:23 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gtld-council] proposed new Rec. #21
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Gomes [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> 
> >It seems to me that this wording may go counter to one of the 
> >objectives we have pursued for a long time on the New gTLD 
> Committee, 
> >that is to attempt to not put the ICANN Board in a situtation where 
> >they are overly exposed to risk.
> 
> Chuck, can you explain to me why the Board assumes no risk 
> with a statement in #3 that it won't violate trademark rights 
> but assumes new "risks" with a guarantee for free expression rights? 
> 
> In fact, in both cases, a guarantee that the process won't 
> violate existing rights actually protects the Board from litigation. 
> 
> Given ICANN's close links to the US govt and its 
> incorporation in the US, there may be severe risks of 
> litigation if ICANN does NOT make it clear that it isn't 
> intended to restrict free expression rights. I suspect you 
> will all learn about this soon from ICM Registry. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release 
> Date: 7/2/2007 3:35 PM
>  
>