RE: [council] WG on Sunrise Process - outreach

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems to me that the SOW for the working group should include the
questions that Avri raises.  Also, I think the SOW should include the
task of answering this question: Without venturing an opinion as to
whether or not special procedures should be implemented to deal with IP
rights, are there other ways to protect these rights besides using a
sunrise period?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:17 AM
To: Council GNSO
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