RE: [registrars] WIPO II discussion.

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bob,

Just for information, the GNSO Council will be meeting with the GAC in
closed seesion at the end of the day on Tuesday.   In past such meetings
the WIPO-II issue has been raised by GAC members.

The three registrar reps on the GNSO Council (Ross Rader, Tom Keller,
Bruce Tonkin) will find any update on the WIPO-II issue most helpful.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Registrars Rep on GNSO Council


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2004 6:47 AM
> To: Registrars Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] WIPO II discussion.
> 
> 
> Dear Registrars:
> 
> Please note the following agenda items:
> 
> 3. WIPO II report - Report by Bob Connelly.
> 4. WLS and SiteFinder - Report by ICANN
> 5. Joint meeting with other constituencies - Business, ISP
> 6. Joint meeting with the GAC, if they agree, to discuss ITU and UN 
> meetings regarding Internet governance.
> 
> I recommend moving #3 down to be included in #5.  What I 
> believe would be 
> the RC position is, IMO, compatible with the Registries and even IPR.
> 
> The primary, if not the only proponents of expanding the UDRP 
> to IGOs and 
> country names are speaking for GAC.  I suggest that there 
> would be much 
> benefit of vetting the issue during #5 in the absence of GAC.
> 
> Then be prepare to rebut the WIPO II issue with GAC.
> 
> Of considerable consequence is the GAC intent to make the arbitration 
> mandatory, not options for the GAC issues.  There is strong 
> opposition, 
> several informed participants claim it would result in ICANN creating 
> International law:-(
> 
> It should be noted that very few of the GAC delegation to the 
> committee 
> ever join the teleconferences.  Mostly it is a WIPO 
> representative that 
> carries the water for GAC.
> 
> I should also state that there is to be a meeting of the WIPO 
> II committee 
> in Rome.  GAC would like for it to be on the 29th, a Sunday. 
> In the prior 
> teleconference two weeks ago, 1 March was proposed.  
> Accordingly, I bought 
> my ticket to arrive at 11:25 on the 1st.  I'm already staying *one* 
> Saturday night.
> 
> This morning, there was grudging acceptance of 3:00 pm on 1 
> March, but it 
> is not definite.
> 
> Your comments are solicited.
> 
> Regards, BobC 
> 
> 
>