<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
Chuck,
I agree with you that trademarks are only a subset of "confusingly
similar". The point is that trademarks are outside of the realm of
technical confusion, and only technical confusion should be included
within the "confusingly similar" issue since that is all that is
within ICANN's scope of authority.
I disagree that international law says that domain names, without any
analysis of their use, can be considered confusingly similar. Please
remember the presentation that Professor Christine Haight Farley,
American University international trademark law expert, gave to us
in San Juan, where she attempted to explain this key point in detail.
Her paper is online at: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/06/06/farley-
legal-briefing/
and the video of her presentation is at: http://www.keep-the-core-
neutral.org/node/31
It is a mistake for us to continue to expand trademark rights in
domain names beyond the scope of rights that trademark law grants.
So I can't support a GNSO position that does this.
Another suggestion that was provided at our dinner table last night
was that a better way to deal with confusion caused by similar script
characters (such as the "paypal example") is by the creation of new
FONTS that make the characters more distinct and thus eliminate this
type of confusion through a software fix (rather than by expanding
trademark rights). I agree that we should explore this approach.
Thanks,
Robin
On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:00 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
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
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|