Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Gregory W. Krajewski
Date/Time: Thu, November 2, 2000 at 2:40 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: IPC's Level of involvement in the TLD process........How much is too much???


As you must realize by now, the IPC (Intellectual) Property Constituency has a lot of influence when it comes to TM and copyright protection....It will be up to you to decide whether the amount of influence is justified...Is their thinking correct (the right way)??...That is why I advocate a "individual constituency" position on the DNSO Board to even things out (since they were able to send out a press release and subsequently posted on the ICANN website by ICANN)....Anyways, I went searching and found some links...

The links posted below could have been found by anyone, they are NOT intended to disrupt this process, rather to make it clear, and open as to what IPC's level of involvement is with ICANN and what some of their philosophies are:  (WOW!!)   (A philosophy that could work where TM holders and inviduals exist)

I took the liberty to cut and paste a piece from the above linked page...Keep in mind these statements are from 1994 (you draw your own conclusions)..These statements are from the rep on the IPC DNSO which is to show what his thinking is as far as intellectual property protection (he is on the DNSO board and an elected position, by ICANN members)

>>>The session on intellectual property raised questions about the nature of intellectual property in networked information. Steve Metalitz of the Information Industries Association described his view that intellectual property protection is critical for the creation of reliable information and services on the Net. There are legal, technical, as well as cultural/educational issues to intellectual property rights. The challenge, according to Metalitz, is to build "bridges and tunnels" among the participants and to craft contracts and rules to link users and information providers. Metalitz outlined a payment model in which users actions would be metered, and users would pay per use. In contrast, Bob Oakley, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, put forth a library model of accessing information. In the library model, according to Oakley, the fundamental purpose of copyright is for the public good and a view of fair use as a way to achieve value, not simply as a transaction-based pay-per-view. Oakley cited community and university libraries and the Internet as models for this kind of system.<<<<<<  (this link towards the bottom mentions, sovereignty....Something that will break ICANN if not respected---Let the courts decide...not a body of gov't)   (ICANN and hollywood)  (AT&T looks for a spot on the ICANN board---Keep in mind who is on what board)

Now for those who think I have posted these links to "create" an issue... you're dead wrong!!!..I only wish to keep IPC in the open as far as what level of involvement in this important upcoming decision by ICANN...By the way, that just shows you as INDIVIDUALS we MUST become more involved if we wish to have a voice in this process...

Lastly, if you read my comments below (see link), you will see that I believe it is necessary for TM protection (for certain protections--not blanket coverage)...I am just not willing to see one group exert more control over what is supposed to be a fair, and open process..In doing so I hope to show you why ICANN and registries (for that matter) should not be involved in TM protection...That is what UDRP is for and the laws of a particular country...IN the US...the congress has passed a tough Anti-Squat Act...To go further, and propose a sunrise, when there clearly is no consensus in the communities, is showing undue influence......

What I suggest you do is take another look at IOD's proposal which calls for strict UDRP adherence (which the IPC fully endorses) and a innovative, "volunteer" domain name return policy, no questions asked...This promotes a healthy community, not one bent on any one agenda (this is a multi-facet issue with regards to uploading TLD's--technical aspects of the applications, etc)...

What I advocate is clear and concise avenues of communication, to make this a fair process, and so that we can come to an agreement that suits everyones needs...

If you disagree with my comments I URGE you to make a comment!!! This is so badly needed (open dialogue).  The problem is when you don't communicate, you don't realize your working towards the same goal, it's just you have different approaches...I think IOD's is the correct way...What is your recommended approach???

DISCLAIMER:  I am to interested in this process and have made it known that I own some dot web domains, but clearly back IOD for many other reasons (competition, prior use, technical merits of their application, customer service)...I placed my vote for Dot Web and IOD, long ago...This goes to the heart of what I am talking about, as far as openness and my level of influence in this process, which right now is a At-Large Member, I have signed the FOCI petition (Friends of Competitive Internet), and lastly I have written to congressmen and women, and to include the ICANN board members about my support for IOD and dot web. 

Thank you.

Gregory W. Krajewski



Link: My comments on the Sunrise, and ICANN's responsibilities

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy