
and just to clarify my comments, I'm all for new TLDs. However, new space is not the solution to the problems raised by WIPO-II. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of ext Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:22 AM To: marc@schneiders.org; alick.wilson@xendra.co.nz Cc: paul.verhoef@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; jeffrey@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II I think Marc's point highlights the real issue here ...the need for a mechanism to protect IGO and country names (where appropriate) in every existing (and future) TLD ...not to create new space. Lucy -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of ext Marc Schneiders Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:56 AM To: Alick Wilson Cc: 'Paul Verhoef'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'John Jeffrey' Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II Your line of thinking I do like. But in my view new sTLDs are not needed. For IGOs there is already .int (as in wipo.int). And countries have their ccTLDs. I do like the idea, that having your own space (TLD), means your are not entitled to the rest of the name space. Marc On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, at 16:48 [=GMT+1300], Alick Wilson wrote:
Colleagues, I wonder if there is a case to be made for new sTLDs for international intergovernmental organizations (say .igo) and countries (say .country)?
While these would not deal directly with offending sites in the rest of the gTLD namespace, it would at least provide a single official address for IGOs and countries.
The concept could, of course, be extended to other sensitive types of name.
Am I right off track or does this have some merit?
Alick
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Verhoef Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2004 10:41 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'John Jeffrey' Subject: [council] WIPO-II
All,
Please find enclosed the letter and its annex from WIPO that we received last week.
I understand there were some technical issues with getting it on the web-site but as soon as these are arranged it will go up, hopefully already today. I would like to offer my excuses for that.
regards
Paul
<<...>> <<...>>
____________________________________ Paul Verhoef Vice President Policy Development Support ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org

Lucy, I agree, new TLDs are a good idea. They solve nothing though for major trademark owners, who will no be satisfied with anything less than their trademark.com. And .net, and .org, and all the rest. With the latter I am not happy. I understand that disney will not accept me registering disney.net. And I don't want to fight that, or nokia.net. These are coined or family names (I don't know.) But I once got into legal problems over registering hyperbole.net. These were solved so no hard feelings. But I have difficulty with allowing ALL trademark holders or ALL countries or IGO's or whatever WIPO or others come with up next to have a pre-emptive claim on all domains including their name in all TLDs. There is lots of people called Erikson in Sweden and why should they all be barred for registering their family name just because there is a mobile phone manufacturer once called Erikson and now part of Sony? As for country names: This is complicated. They are no trademarks. There are so many forms of them, and the official ones are usually not what people would look for. (Nobody looks for my country under its official name: Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, rather Netherlands or Holland.) We need new rules, and not ad hoc like with the country names in .info after lobbying of GAC with the ICANN board. This is not the way to make policy, to say the least. This is not the ICANN way to make policy. It might be that of the UN at times. We need to act as council to avoid this to happen again. I do not know how. I hope you do. I would be most interested (and willing to think further about) a proposal that solves problems within your constituency (that aren't solved yet by the UDRP) but also avoids granting more and more entities rights to names and words in the domain name system. Again, I do understand it is stupid for me to register nokia.info or disney.nl. And I won't even try. But I cannot accept that I can't put a website on word.web, if I am lucky enough to get that domain. Obviously I am asking for problems if I start selling WordPerfcet (does it still exist?) on this site. But when I merely have some anecdotes about some words, who should be allowed to stop me? I find it unacceptable that companies that use dictionary words can clame these words in all TLDs. Similarly, there is no reason why Paris in France should have all paris.* domains. There are lots of places called Paris. And Paris in France was (I am guessing) named after Greek mythological figure. So who own that name? I am in Holland. But there is people called Holland in the US, Australia, etc. Why should my country have all holland.* domains? Should it even if there is a company with a larger turnover than my country does in taxes? Let's go for clear stuff. Not all domains in all TLDs. If that is to be, I am _against_ new TLDs. They are useless. There is a TM on every word. Marc On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, at 14:56 [=GMT+0200], Lucy.Nichols@nokia.com wrote:
and just to clarify my comments, I'm all for new TLDs. However, new space is not the solution to the problems raised by WIPO-II.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of ext Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:22 AM To: marc@schneiders.org; alick.wilson@xendra.co.nz Cc: paul.verhoef@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org; jeffrey@icann.org Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
I think Marc's point highlights the real issue here ...the need for a mechanism to protect IGO and country names (where appropriate) in every existing (and future) TLD ...not to create new space.
Lucy
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of ext Marc Schneiders Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:56 AM To: Alick Wilson Cc: 'Paul Verhoef'; council@gnso.icann.org; 'John Jeffrey' Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
Your line of thinking I do like. But in my view new sTLDs are not needed. For IGOs there is already .int (as in wipo.int). And countries have their ccTLDs.
I do like the idea, that having your own space (TLD), means your are not entitled to the rest of the name space.
Marc
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, at 16:48 [=GMT+1300], Alick Wilson wrote:
Colleagues, I wonder if there is a case to be made for new sTLDs for international intergovernmental organizations (say .igo) and countries (say .country)?
While these would not deal directly with offending sites in the rest of the gTLD namespace, it would at least provide a single official address for IGOs and countries.
The concept could, of course, be extended to other sensitive types of name.
Am I right off track or does this have some merit?
Alick
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Verhoef Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2004 10:41 p.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: 'John Jeffrey' Subject: [council] WIPO-II
All,
Please find enclosed the letter and its annex from WIPO that we received last week.
I understand there were some technical issues with getting it on the web-site but as soon as these are arranged it will go up, hopefully already today. I would like to offer my excuses for that.
regards
Paul
<<...>> <<...>>
____________________________________ Paul Verhoef Vice President Policy Development Support ICANN 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt.5 B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Tel.: +32.2.234 7872 Fax: +32.2.234 7848 <http://www.icann.org> www.icann.org
participants (2)
-
Lucy.Nichols@nokia.com
-
Marc Schneiders