[council] WG on Sunrise Process - outreach

[Edmon Chung]

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 at acm.org>
To: "Council GNSO" <council at 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
>