[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dnsproc-en] 4th WIPO Panel of Experts member signs ICANN pet ition
Marilyn and all,
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> Milton, thank you for providing information about the petition regarding
> the implementation of the WIPO Final Report. I not agree with this
> recommendation. AT&T's comments, recommending the acceptance of the Final
> Report are posted to the ICANN site, and provide our input and
> recommendation that the Final Report be accepted by the ICANN Interim Board.
I am not surprised that AT&T is in support of the WIPO "Final Report"
recommendations. It is in the interest of AT&T's very large stock
to be so in some ways to be sure as the "Final Report" in an
manner favors large Trademark interests which provides those same
large Trademark interests with allot of leverage to pressure legally,
small Domain Name holders that may not have their Domains Trademarked
yet, and in other varied ways, to steal those Domain Name holders
Domain Names, commonly known as "Reverse Hijacking".
This is only one of the reasons that I can fully understand why AT&T
supports the WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations. Milton outlined
several others as well.
My question to you is were any of your customers consulted or ask
if they support the WIPO's "Final Report" Recommendations? I know
I certainly was not. Did AT&T send out any forms to their stock holders
requesting input on WIPO's "Final Report" Recommendations? I am
a stock holder and did not receive any correspondence in this regard.
So I suppose I would have to question the validity of AT&T even stating
that it does support the WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations....
> However, because there are many individuals on the posting you provided whom
> I personally know, I will provide a short explanation of concerns with the
> recommendation to defer adopting the WIPO Final Report recommendations. For
> any individual on the petition who would like to have a more extensive
> 'conversation' with me, I am happy to talk/email with you.
> The White Paper provided for the WIPO study process. Many in the private
> sector, including industry, professional and trade associations representing
> industry from many sectors and companies both large and small, interested
> individuals, and non profits, participated in a public and international
> process which led to the development of the Final Report. Extensive input,
> and dialogue continued over a matter of months. As someone who participated
> in this process, it was both open, and public, and presented a wide
> diversity of input and opinions. This was an extensive, expensive and time
> consuming process for everyone.
All true. However we were never given the opportunity to VOTE on
any of the WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations. And this is part of
what the White Paper requires. So, I along with [INEGroup] representing
over 90k stakeholders would have to evaluate this WIPO process
invalid and nearly a complete waste of time money and allot of effort.
> The report represents a compromise for everyone. In the view of many in
> the industry, it is in fact, rather limited in its scope. Many in the
> industry sector wanted more extensive recommendations. Yet they are agreeing
> to accept these compromise recommendations because it is in the interest of
> the Internet to move forward.
There are two problems with you comments here. 1.) Limited in scope
is a matter of conjecture and from many of the recommendations that the
WIPO "Final Report" makes it is hardly "Limited in scope". 2.) Moving
forward is of course a very good and necessary thing to do we [INEGroup]
and I agree. But at the expense of small and medium size stakeholders,
and without the individual stakeholders having a chance to VOTE on these
recommendations as the White Paper requires, it is going very much too
> The DNSO is just getting formed; many of the constituencies are still
> formative. Delaying accepting this report will delay any progress in this
> important area for months. The constituencies of the DNSO and the DNSO
> itself have work to do to get constituted, recognized, and then come
> together in an effective communication process, and then working process.
Yes, the DNSO process in and of itself was mostly a sham as well,
an thankfully that is well documented. The ICANN Interim Board acted
unilaterally and against the consensus of those debates and discussions,
culminating into an constituency model for the DNSO. This, along with
the WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations, once the constituencies
are truly formed and in place, will add to the already disjointed and
overly confusing process or dealing with the "Final Report"
from WIPO, to be sure. And as the DNSO is a constituency based model
any decision regarding the WIPO "Final Report" Recommendations will
not be a consensus based decision or have the interest of the
as a basis. This too is also a violation of the White Paper precepts as
> Any of us (most who signed onto the document) who have worked to help groups
> form, and who understand the group dynamics involved understand that there
> is much work yet for the DNSO and its constituencies to do to get "started".
How true. One of the first recommendations that should be considered
is doing away with the constituency based model for the DNSO.
> I urge all of the signatories to the petition to give consideration to the
> need to move forward. At the August board meeting, progress in
> implementation of the WIPO recommendations can be one of the agenda items,
> and should be. The DNSO will be further along in its status, and will be
> able to provide input on any significant areas of concern, with the input of
> its formed constituencies.
> One common interest which many of the signatories to the petition share with
> me, and others engaged in this process is a sincere concern about the
> health, stability, and integrity of the Internet and ensuring that it is a
> reliable and effective communication mechanism for support of personal and
> commercial communications and transactions. Accepting the WIPO Final Report
> is one step in the right direction.
> There is much work still to be done -- in the areas which the report
> addresses, and in other areas. I believe that accepting the WIPO Final
> Report is a place where we can start.
Well I am afraid that WIPO's "Final Report" Recommendations, are a
> Best regards, Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 12:54 PM
> To: wipo; Esther Dyson; politech list; ifwp; Robert Cannon; Elinor
> Mills; Robert Macmillan; Nick Patience; Sandra Gittlen; Carl Kaplan;
> apple; B. Sandberg; Benny Ross; Courtney Macavinta; Jeri Clausing; Dan
> Goodin; Jon Swartz
> Subject: [dnsproc-en] 4th WIPO Panel of Experts member signs ICANN
> May 23, 1999
> Another WIPO Panel of Experts member has added his name to the
> petition asking ICANN to defer adopting any WIPO Final Report
> recommendations. A. Michael Froomkin, whose legal critique of the WIPO
> Interim Report led to major revisions in the Final Report, has joined
> 75 other scholars, technologists, service providers, and users in
> asking ICANN to give the Internet community more time to study the
> proposals. The group wants to allow the Domain Name Supporting
> Organization and an elected ICANN Board to participate in the decision
> making process.
> The ICANN Board will meet in secret May 27 to decide what to do with
> the WIPO report.
> The full petition can be viewed at
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208