Open letter to ICANN Board for approval of new gTLD program
nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM
Tue Jun 14 20:30:42 CEST 2011
Would you care to elaborate instead of asserting stuff peremptorily (and
implicitly, and vaguely) please?
Please keep in mind that many here including myself are not linked
materially or ideologically with what some people call "the
Also, with regard the usual clamor *against* adding new TLDs and that
asserts that it is extortion on brands, please know that many here would
think, to the contrary (and with apologies for the short version), that
many more TLDs *will make it futile/impossible to try to subject an
alphanumeric string to trademark law* (the sought-for result, from my
point of view). This analysis is also compatible with the view shared
here by at least a few that alphanumeric strings of an *addressing*
system *should not* be subjected to IP laws or regimes.
If it is other "harms" that you think will hit us, please explain why
you think DNS is not scalable at the TLD level.
On 14/06/2011 7:48 AM, JFC Morfin wrote:
> Dear Mary,
> I am afraid that the last word is definitly wrong.
>> * Does the New gTLD Program help the security and stability of
>> the Internet, or at least not harm it,?
>> * In cases where potential harms have been identified, does the
>> New gTLD Program provide processes for addressing and/or
>> mitigating such harms?
>> * Has the Board taken expert advice in those areas where it
>> required specialist knowledge? In cases where a single result
>> was deemed insufficient or potentially biased, did it seek
>> further advice?
>> /We believe that in all cases the answer is a resounding "Yes."/
> /What I observe is that to the two first questions and to the two
> following questions "has the author of this petition taken expert
> advice in those areas where it required basic architectural precaution
> and knowledge?" and "In cases where a single result was deemed
> insufficient or potentially biased, did he/she seek further advice?"
> I observe that the answer is a resounding "No".
> Some people from the Board seem to know better about the DNS than
> lawyers, business lobbyists, activists and Australian naming team
> afficionados (25% of the signatorees) at the origin of the New gTLD
> At 05:48 14/06/2011, Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> This petition, being circulated amongst some ICANN participants, may
>> be of interest; it urges the Board to approve the new gTLD program
>> when it has its special meeting in Singapore this coming Monday (20
>> June): http://www.petitions24.com/newtlds
>> It also touches on questions such as consensus, multi-stakeholder
>> input and ICANN's credibility and accountability issues, which have
>> been regular topics of discussion on this list.
>> *Mary W S Wong
>> */Professor of Law
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> /UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord,
>> NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>> <mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.edu> Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage:
>> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available
>> on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ncuc-discuss