<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] WG on Sunrise Process - outreach
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] WG on Sunrise Process - outreach
- From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:41:34 +0800
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:reply-to:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole:sender; b=dsVgncaG5egquXOfj7PvIklxAgbpii6jImh5Ti6DXpTCO02lpgUAMUPc/s8Y/dCQVUB4qtpJfjWqlrQt7wURg+Cwd2upat2K5GvCb0DK5/IIk2Z02Qtyxgx9lVSq7lngh+QxkoGxfl6ryhbafLM6ahoXh0+G91ARV/Pv2Y2iwnI=
- References: <BA66474B-D6CB-4A6C-AC43-9288E2D8C07F@acm.org>
- Reply-to: "Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxx>
To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|