Return to wgb Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Judith Oppenheimer
Date/Time: Wed, April 19, 2000 at 2:50 PM GMT (Wed, April 19, 2000 at 9:50 AM EST)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: WG-B Chair:  "Our focal point must remain what protection if any do famous trademarks have."

Message:
 

        In October '99 Michael Palage wrote to me, "Our focal point must remain what protection if any do famous trademarks have."

To repeat, the Chair of Working Group B said "[Working Group B's] focal point must remain what protection if any do famous trademarks have."

-----------
verbatim note:
-----------
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:mpalage@infonetworks.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 9:48 PM
To: Judith Oppenheimer
Subject: Request

Judith I am sending this request to you personally and not through the list.
I understand the issues that you may have with the entire ICANN process but
it is not the focal point of this group.

Our focal point must remain what protection if any do famous trademarks
have.

Thanks for your participation to date and I welcome your future comments on
the issues before us. I encourage you to raise your concerns in the
appropriate ICANN mailing list.

Mike
-----------

By what authority did Mr. Palage abandon Working Group B's charter of "what protection if any do famous trademarks have"?

What is the foundation for The [so-called] Report of Working Group B's assertion that "The Sunrise Proposal allowing pre-registration for all Trademarks now has strong support in the registrar communities..."

Timothy Denton, BA, BCL, Telecom and Internet Law and Policy, says, "There is no evidence that the registrars agree with the supposed proposal. They have not formally been consulted."

Registrar TUCOWS/OpenSRS' comments with the DNSO state "...The IPC's
contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a rapid, large expansion of domain names... This most recent proposal from the IPC must be stopped. If it stands, the rules for the average person as it relates to
domain name registration will change drastically and for the worse."

Similarly, I'd like to know the foundation for The [so-called] Report of Working Group B's assertion that "Some members of the ... Small Business Communities also have expressed support for this Proposal."

Which members?

Certainly not the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, which says "the sunrise provision allowing early registration by trademark holders is not grounded in law... It is also overly-broad and will impact entities who aren't infringing the mark, as well as giving preferential treatment to one class of commercial entities over another...", and concludes adamantly, "the current "modified sunrise proposal" would have a detrimental impact on small business and should not be adopted."

I have queried the Names Council regarding these questions, and as yet have received no response.

Judith Oppenheimer
Member, Working Group-B


     

It was recently said, "It suddenly occurs to me. ICANN is forever. ICANN *is* the Government of the Internet. How do I know? ICANN has managed to create a fully functioning Government with all the time-honored features of same:

Layers of impenetrable beaurocracy;
A catchy yet meaningless mandate;
Deep-pocketed vested interests;
A deeply cynical participatory model;
A puppet judiciary;
and a "loyal" opposition.

No doubt in a hundred years a noble creation myth will have been
invented, with all evidence to the contrary buried on orphaned media.


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy