Re: [atlarge-discuss] Sunrise for IDNs?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all fellow members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Vittorio,
>
> Re:  "The ALAC will possibly produce a statement on this issue"
>
> It is not sufficient to only produce a statement.

  I happen to agree with you on this Danny.  It really isn't sufficient to
only produce a statement by the ALAC.  My guess is this is simply
a passive approach by the ALAC to address IDN's and for that matter
any other issue that may arise or is extant.

>  Under the bylaws, ICANN
> has granted the ALAC the ability to raise an issue for consideration within
> the GNSO policy development process (see Annex A, Section 1c:  Advisory
> Committee Initiation -- An Advisory Committee may raise an issue for policy
> development by action of such committee to commence the PDP, and transmission
> of that request to the GNSO Council).
>
> As a user, I question by what right trademark interests are allowed to
> proceed to the front of the registration line.  I challenge both the process
> and the legitimacy of Sunrise periods, and argue for a return to the
> principle of first-come/first-served.  This issue deserves more than a mere
> "statement".  It deserves a thorough community-wide discussion within the
> GNSO.

  It deserves much more than just a community-wide discussion within
the GNSO/DNSO.  In fact that legitimacy of the now "GNSO" is certainly
in question and has been challenged.  This issue demands a stakeholder/user
wide debate, discussion, and than at some point a vote by the stakeholders/users
as to what the policy or policies for IDN should and would become.
Of course, given the skewed and challenged structure of the so called
"GNSO" without a DNSO GA, is not going to allow for such a
discussion of debate, let alone a vote by the stakeholders/users on IDN
or for that matter any DNS related issue or concern with respect to
policy.

  But your right Danny in that the IP/Trademark lobby or interests do not
have a superior right as sunrise provisions that we have seen thus far
would intend over registrants, with or without a TM on a particular
IDN domain name.  The very thought is inconsistent with many
jurisdictions legal framework respective to Trademark names.

>
>
> So, will you act to initiate the PDP?
>
> -- danny --
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de