RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report

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

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


        Agreed.
        Edmon



                -----Original Message-----
                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
                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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx