Content-T text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Software: Lyris Server version 3.0 List-Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> List-Owner: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-URL: <http://www.ifwp.org> X-List-Host: Assn. for Interactive Media List Server <http://www.interactivehq.org> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk I believe that BOTH Icann and the DNSO are not terribly relevant to the adoption of the WIPO measures. The real key to their adoption is the registries. Please tell me what leverage ICANN has that can require all registries and all registrars to adopt the same dispute resolution policy, the same registration contract, etc. WIPO's recommendations can affect ICANN's decisions to introduce (or not) new gTLDs. But I fail to see how it can require all registries to adopt WIPO's recommendations, even if its board happens to support those unnecessary and poorly thought-out provisions. If ICANN attempts to adopt the WIPO measures and impose them upon registries, they can and will be sued. Jay Fenello wrote: > >> Interesting, WIPO seems to think that this is a done deal from the way > >> they are talking... > > > >ICANN has to approve it. They can't, really, until the DNSO is constituted, > >because they would then be acting against their own bylaws, which require > >rules restricting domain name registrations (among other things) to > >originate with the DNSO. > > If I remember correctly, if an outside group submits > a policy to the ICANN Board, they will forward it to > the appropriate SO for review and recommendation. > This can't occur until the DNSO is formed! > > Jay. > > >Which is where the January 21 & 22 meetings in Washington come in. That's > >where support for WIPO's new rules will be fixed, probably on the 21st, with > >the re-written DNSO proposal, including WIPO's draconian DN constraints > >(two-month wait between registration and allocation, investigation of the > >applicant, a requirement to sign an agreement to be bound by a > >WIPO-appointed arbitration board, etc.) submitted to the community on the > >22nd. > > > >There is only one question that remains to be answered: Has the ICANN BoD > >already told the INTA and WIPO that they will accept those draconian > >measures, and that only an application for a DNSO that includes them will be > >approved? > > > >__________________________________________________ > >To receive the digest version instead, send a > >blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >___END____________________________________________ > > > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___END____________________________________________ __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
