RE: [council] WIPO-II
- To: Alick Wilson <alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:55:48 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: "'Paul Verhoef'" <paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'John Jeffrey'" <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
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
> 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?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Paul Verhoef
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 November 2004 10:41 p.m.
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'John Jeffrey'
> Subject: [council] WIPO-II
> 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.
> <<...>> <<...>>
> Paul Verhoef
> Vice President Policy Development Support
> 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