Speaking of the Sunrise Process, in fact, I am dealing with this (and the issue of reserved names) on a daily basis right now as we prepare our launch for .ASIA. So, I am happy to provide any input to the workgroup and also to learn from the group as well. I am also meeting with and reaching out to many relevant people and groups precisely on the subject currently, so I am happy to contribute experience there and also invite interested people to the discussion where appropriate as well. Edmon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" <avri@acm.org> To: "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:16 PM Subject: [council] WG on Sunrise Process - outreach
Hi,
I want to take the chance to amplify on my concerns from yesterday's discussion on the possibility of a Sunrise Process WG.
Let me start by saying that i do not consider myself at all expert, or even well informed yet, on this topic. In fact it is in the process of trying to educate myself exactly on what is involved in this, that i found that the divergence of seemingly responsible opinion on this issue is as diverse as the opinions on any ICANN issue. I have read text on many different views; from those who believe that it is anti-competitive and protectionist and as such a process that should be severely curtailed if not abolished, to those who believe it is critical to the financial well being of existing name/mark holders and thus should be strengthened. In addition to hearing the process described as one of necessary protection for trademark holders, I have also heard it described as one that places an incalculable profit burden on registries and registrars, as one which is a IP attorney employment program and as something that is not within ICANN's mission of security and stability.
I don't pretend to know, at this point, where it actually falls, or what the actual requirements and costs are for all the concerned stakeholders. This is why I argued during the meeting for the widest possible outreach in establishing this working group. It is also why I think that the WG should be open beyond just the members of constituencies, but should be open to any ICANN participant who has something relevant to discuss in regard to the issue. Since WGs do not make decisions or even recommend policies, but rather submit a report based on the aggregate knowledge of the participants, i think that it should be possible to collect as wide a view as possible for the committees and task forces to review (note: this is a general view i have on WGs and not just applicable to the Sunrise WG).
thanks a.
PS. Happy Hanuka and Blessed Solstice and what ever other holiday y'all celebrate