[council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

Mon Feb 11 12:00:42 UTC 2008

Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar) does not necessarily relate to
trademarks although that could be a subset.  The detailed discussion we
included for this was taken from international law relating to
trademarks but the intent was to apply the requirement on broader basis,
in particularly for existing gTLDs that do not have any trade mark
rights.

Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:50 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

The same issue was raised at my table by the board members.  The feeling
was "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, that
is their problem.  They must pick 1 name."  I think there is merit to
this view.    It was also mentioned that Chinese is a script that is
used by a large community in just about EVERY country in the world, so
does this mean every country gets a script in Chinese?    In the US
alone, there are large language communities for probably 10 scripts,
giving the US 10 scripts under our rule.   I do not believe this is what
we intended.

And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with.  In
particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be confusingly
similar" is misplaced.  Only technical confusion is the type that should
be dealt with here, not general confusion.  I agree.  This
recommendation really does not make sense from a trademark viewpoint
(although that is how it is intended), since a domain name, by itself,
does not cause confusion, but only with relation to how the domain is
used.    We are going well beyond technical stability and trying to
regulate other things that are outside ICANN's authority.

Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before we
vote on them.    I found the feedback from the board to be enormously
useful and we should try to address their concerns before voting.

Thanks,
Robin

On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote:

	I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already
consented.

	At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another
table - there 
	was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one
language 
	group": "their government should decide to choose just one."

	I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the
political/social/cultural 
	implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be
highly 
	destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian
government 
	would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian
ethnic sections 
	of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was
dismissed 
	as "not ICANN's problem."

	Norbert

	-

	----------  Forwarded Message  ----------

	Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
	Date: Monday, 11 February 2008
	From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon at dotasia.org>
	To: "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>

	Agreed.
	Edmon

		-----Original Message-----
		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
		Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
		Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
		To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
		Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues
report

		The same issue was raised at our table Avri.

		I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.

		Regards,

		Adrian Kinderis

	-- 
	If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
	please visit us regularly - you can find something new every
day:

	http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com 

	Agreed.
	Edmon

		-----Original Message-----
		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
		Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
		Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM
		To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
		Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues
report

		The same issue was raised at our table Avri.

		I believe your suggested change would be appropriate.

		Regards,

		Adrian Kinderis
		Managing Director
		AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd
		Level 8, 10 Queens Road
		Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004
		Ph: +61 3 9866 3710
		Fax: +61 3 9866 1970
		Email: adrian at ausregistry.com
		Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com

		The information contained in this communication is
intended for the
		named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and
may contain
		legally privileged and confidential information and if
you are not an
		intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or
take any action
		in reliance on it. If you have received this
communication in error,
		please delete all copies from your system and notify us
immediately.

		-----Original Message-----
		From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
		On Behalf Of Avri Doria
		Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM
		To: Council GNSO
		Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

		Hi,

		At my table this evening, we had a conversation about
Executive
		summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "...
without GNSO's
		concurrence"

		While explaning it this, I explained that it really
refered to the
		need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2
and the ICANn
		community had  achieved a common agreement of an interim
procedure.

		I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say:
" without
		prior community concurrence"

		thanks

		a.

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080211/ecb42b55/attachment.html>