ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] another one

  • To: kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] another one
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 05:44:38 -0800 (PST)
  • Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=cjoOto17K+Il3hN5WKlh4mTQz/YGJC0TJ3UGTDH0Hsn//+VplQ6bEFH6M/GcbGlbBV3XuPjIVYGfbALHDEAhMZd16nJZuwdyi0GfHq9PyNqg3B3ud8qOzW8m8NhXmQbYioF9vpLx37qNuD3gzScn3goIJQfZW8S7pfgXi//9esA= ;
  • In-reply-to: <000101c60d3f$8c51a720$0201a8c0@kidsearch4>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What I find even more troubling is a GNSO that is
aware of the flaws in the UDRP yet does nothing to fix
the problem.  If I recall correctly, the last UDRP
task force was making good progress until its Chair
(who came from the Intellectual Property Constituency)
disappeared and left the group floundering.  The
Council then retired the TF claiming that it was too
busy to handle the workload, and promised to take up
the UDRP issues at a later date... like that will ever
happen :(

The GNSO remains a total mess.  If you have a look at
the different constituency mailing lists (NCUC, ISPCP,
IPC, Registrars) you will see that absolutely no
discussion has even started on the new TLDs PDP
(although the registrars have finally nominated a
point person -- Ross Rader -- to solicit comment and
coordinate the preparation of a constituency
statement).  All in all, it's pretty pathetic and
seems to demand that we gut the GNSO and start over
with a new approach.

Will the independent evaluator of the GNSO reach that
conclusion in his/her GNSO review?  Sure, as soon as
pigs fly... so we will surely be stuck with an
inefficient, crony-laden, moribund and glacially-paced
GNSO for years to come that will never get around to
repairing the UDRP.

In ICANN-speak this is called "stability".



--- kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-29-2005/0004240474&EDATE=
> 
> Now, I agree with the decision on this one, but
> something strikes me as funny. A tm holder can sue
> you if you register a domain name that matches or is
> too similar to the holder's trademark.
> 
> However, you can buy the adword from google or
> overture and they can't sue you. I can buy the
> adword pearljam or pearl jam, and I cannot be sued.
> Kind of a double standard, don't you think?
> 
> Chris McElroy
> MissingChildrenBlog.com 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. 
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>