On 07/16/2009 09:41 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
I hate to say it, but trademark/IP issues were written into the initial MoU, which became current JPA, item V.C.9.d quoted below. http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm
d. Recommendations regarding trademark/domain name policies set forth in the Statement of Policy; recommendations made by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) concerning:
Two points. First is that NTIA has no legal authority to do that kind of thing itself and thus has no power to require it of others or to delegate it to to others. The US Congress' arm called the "GAO" twice looked for NTIA's authority in these matters and twice came up with the answer "we can't find any". The list of authorities cited in the MOU is of ones so distant from what ICANN does as to be essentially irrelevant. Second is that the quote you cite mentions merely says that ICANN ought to "consider and take into account" certain then existing recommendations from WIPO. That quote does not, at least not to my mind, suggest participation by anything or anyone other than WIPO. Moreover, the item you cite is one of 10 items. But let's look at that item more closely:
9. Collaborate on the design, development and testing of a plan for creating a process that will consider the possible expansion of the number of gTLDs. The designed process should consider and take into account the following:
We see from that that the MOU was merely contemplating the creation of a plan and testing of that plan. It does not call for full implementation of that plan or deployment of things like the UDRP for any purpose other than "testing". By-the-way, during the discussions of this MOU ICANN made promises that the majority of its board seats would be chosen by the public. (I remember that phone call, it was the first time I used VoIP.) Too bad that we did not have the leverage to get NTIA to write that down into the MoU. Sigh. --karl--