ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] WIPO-II

  • To: <Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>, <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] WIPO-II
  • From: <Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 14:56:30 +0200
  • Cc: <paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcTZEgHGpAO31GCsQSqw+MYgTRuE9wCe7M3AAAE6kLA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] WIPO-II

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ext 
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:22 AM
To: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: paul.verhoef@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ext Marc Schneiders
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:56 AM
To: Alick Wilson
Cc: 'Paul Verhoef'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; '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.


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@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
> 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
> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>