RE: [ccnso-members] ccNSO Council comments on country names as gTLDs
From my perspective, it is sensitive as well to consider this proposal (deletion of "including government").
I think that we shouldn't try to explain what we understand by "local Internet Community", this is not our business, even more when entering into this detail my hurt some of our members. Oscar -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. William Semich Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:16 PM To: Chris Disspain Cc: e-gtld-evaluation@icann.org; ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] ccNSO Council comments on country names as gTLDs Chris: Many thanks to the council for this draft submission. Although in general .NU Domain agrees with the ccNSO position (and Janis Karklin's statement), that "The ccNSO has proposed that country or territory names on the ISO-list are treated as ccTLDs" and that "This seems to be a sensible approach to ensure that geographic names are afforded sufficient protection," we do not agree with the wider-reaching statement in the Council's draft comments that "ccTLDs set their policy within territory and in consultation with their local Internet community, including government." Although that statement may be applicable to many ccTLDs, it is not true for - nor is it applicable to - all. I would suggest we try to find a more general and inclusive way to make the our position clear with respect to ccTLD managers' historical and ongoing independent policy-setting mechanisms in the Council's comments - or delete that part of the comments. In addition, I think there is no general consensus among ccTLD managers that there are commonly agreed-upon "fundamental principles associated with national sovereignty" shared among ccTLD managers. We would suggest. again, that the council use wider-ranging and more general language to describe the ccTLD managers' historical and established independence from ICANN gTLD policy, excepting, of course, any policies agreed between any specific ccTLD managers and ICANN under the terms of any contracts, agreements, Accountability Frameworks or exchanges of letters with ICANN, particularly with respect to ccTLD managers' responsibility to obey the local laws where they operate. If my position is not clear on this, please feel free to contact me off-list for further discussions. Regards, Bill Semich .NU Domain On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:03 PM, Chris Disspain wrote:
Comments attached.
Chris Disspain CEO - auDA au Domain Administration Ltd ceo@auda.org.au www.auda.org.au
Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4219 (20090705) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Hi, I know that it is early to be thinking about items for our next meeting, but..... It has been a while since we have discussed dispute processes in the ccNSO and when we last did so, we focussed on sharing ccTLD best practices. However, I suggest that it might be of interest to ccTLD managers to hear about and discuss the latest ideas on dispute processes in the gTLD space, particularly those currently being proposed for new gTLDs. In my view, I think that it is only a matter of time before it is suggested that ccTLD registries should adopt similar measures. Regards, Lesley
Lesley, When you talk about dispute processes you are referring to solutions to solve traditional disputes (domain vs. trademark) or something else? Regards, Oscar ________________________________ From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lesley Cowley Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:27 AM To: ccNSO Council Cc: ccNSO Members Subject: [ccnso-council] Seoul Meeting Programme Hi, I know that it is early to be thinking about items for our next meeting, but..... It has been a while since we have discussed dispute processes in the ccNSO and when we last did so, we focussed on sharing ccTLD best practices. However, I suggest that it might be of interest to ccTLD managers to hear about and discuss the latest ideas on dispute processes in the gTLD space, particularly those currently being proposed for new gTLDs. In my view, I think that it is only a matter of time before it is suggested that ccTLD registries should adopt similar measures. Regards, Lesley
Oscar (and others), owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 15/07/2009 16:39:14:
When you talk about dispute processes you are referring to solutions to solve traditional disputes (domain vs. trademark) or something else?
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was specifically talking about the measures being proposed by the IRT report in respect of the new gTLDs - which include pre-registration measures as well as post-registration measures to protect trademark interests. Regards, Lesley
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [ mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lesley Cowley Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:27 AM To: ccNSO Council Cc: ccNSO Members Subject: [ccnso-council] Seoul Meeting Programme
I know that it is early to be thinking about items for our next meeting, but.....
It has been a while since we have discussed dispute processes in the ccNSO and when we last did so, we focussed on sharing ccTLD best practices. However, I suggest that it might be of interest to ccTLD managers to hear about and discuss the latest ideas on dispute processes in the gTLD space, particularly those currently being proposed for new gTLDs. In my view, I think that it is only a matter of time before it is suggested that ccTLD registries should adopt similar measures.
Regards,
Lesley
Lesley, Thank you for this clarification.
From my personal perspective there is no need to start this discussion, because I don't see any possibility to implement these recommendations in the near future. Basically for two reasons:
1. Most of the IRT report was drafted thinking in Sunrise periods, or "new" TLD's. 2. The IRT composition was mainly to attend the Intellectual Property concerns about the new gTLDs program, thus lacks of broader discussion (example, the discussion on Globally Protected Marks List, didn't take into account the first WIPO Report on Well Known Trademarks, held ten years ago with a broader committee, broader participation community and longer period for discussions) But of curse, I'm open to discuss it. Best Regards, Oscar ________________________________ From: Lesley Cowley [mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:47 AM To: Oscar A. Robles-Garay Cc: ccNSO Council; ccNSO Members; owner-ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: RE: [ccnso-council] Seoul Meeting Programme Oscar (and others), owner-ccnso-council@icann.org wrote on 15/07/2009 16:39:14:
When you talk about dispute processes you are referring to solutions to solve traditional disputes (domain vs. trademark) or something else?
Apologies for my lack of clarity. I was specifically talking about the measures being proposed by the IRT report in respect of the new gTLDs - which include pre-registration measures as well as post-registration measures to protect trademark interests. Regards, Lesley
From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lesley Cowley Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:27 AM To: ccNSO Council Cc: ccNSO Members Subject: [ccnso-council] Seoul Meeting Programme
I know that it is early to be thinking about items for our next meeting, but.....
It has been a while since we have discussed dispute processes in the ccNSO and when we last did so, we focussed on sharing ccTLD best practices. However, I suggest that it might be of interest to ccTLD managers to hear about and discuss the latest ideas on dispute processes in the gTLD space, particularly those currently being proposed for new gTLDs. In my view, I think that it is only a matter of time before it is suggested that ccTLD registries should adopt similar measures.
Regards,
Lesley
participants (2)
-
Lesley Cowley -
Oscar A. Robles-Garay