Kathy and all, I agree with Kathy's analysis here completely. We [INEGroup] would add as we have stated publicly before that any such decision on any recommendation to the ICANN (Initial?) Interim board should be one that is supported by a measurable majority of the DNSO GA as well as the ICANN Membership by majority vote before enactment or adoption as to be in keeping with the Requirements of the White Paper. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To: ICANN Interim Board > From: Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency (NCDNHC) > Re: Return of WIPO Cybersquatting Recommendations to DNSO > for Full Participation by the NCDNHC in its Review > Date: August 16, 1999 > > On August 3 1999, Working Group A (WG-A) of the DNSO > Preliminary Names Council reported to you on its recommendation to > accept the cybersquatting and mandatory arbitration procedures of > WIPO in almost their entire original form. WG-A's report fails to > mention that not a single elected representative of the Non- > Commercial Constituency voted on the report or participated in the > discussion. > > We, the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency, > believe the discussion on this critical new law of the Internet -- the law > of cybersquatting -- and its untested mechanism of administration -- an > international arbitration traditionally geared to large and represented > commercial players -- needed the voice and views of the > noncommercial community to achieve a fair and balanced result. > > After reading our letter, we trust that you, the Interim Board of > ICANN, will not allow this critical domain name policy to proceed > without our input. We ask that -- without any further consideration or > adoption -- you return the WIPO Cybersquatting Recommendations to > the DNSO for another full review. We believe the legitimacy of the > DNSO depends on this action. > > I. Without the NCDNHC, the DNSO/WG-A Had No Formal > Voice for the Non-Commercial Community. > > The NCDNHC is the only formal representative of the non-commercial > community in the DNSO. We are the most heterogenous of the > constituencies, and therefore the most difficult to organize. We now > represent local and regional community organizations, networking > projects, educational institutions, universities, libraries and > government watchdog groups. > > Our organizations and their members have many domain names, but > few trademarks. Thus, it is our groups and their members who will be > among the targets of the future cybersquatting challenges and the > mandatory arbitration procedures that may remove our domain names. > We are the ones who will be hurt by an overbroad definition of > cybersquatting which protects commercial uses of basic words and > phrases beyond infringement or dilution. We are the ones who will be > hurt by the shadow cast on good faith efforts to settle a > trademark/domain name conflicts. We are the ones who will be hurt by > a remote international arbitration system with little understanding or > sympathy for small noncommercial organizations and noncommercial > speech on the Internet. > > Our voice would have been the voice of balance and it was this voice > that was missing from the WG-A discussions and the Names Council > report to you. We would have pushed for more balance in the > cybersquatting definition between trademark rights and > noncommercial fair use. We would have argued for balance in > punishing bad faith challenges of domain names (reverse domain name > hijacking) as well as bad faith registration of domain names > (cybersquatting). > > We would have pushed for a full and considered review of the recent > work of the US Senate and its experts a work which found the WIPO > cybersquatting definition to be overbroad with severe unintended > consequences for noncommercial domain name holders and > noncommercial speech on the Internet. The Senate's work is > consistent not just with US law, but with traditional ** international > principles ** of trademark law and its limits. > > II. The NCDNHC Is Ready to Participate and Proceeding Without > Us Casts an Unnecessary Shadow on the DNSO and ICANN. > > We, the NCDNHC, are ready and able to participate! In Berlin, > organizers of the NCDNHC told ICANN that we would be organized, > have a charter, and elect Names Council representatives before the > Santiago meeting. It was an ambitious plan, but we are happy to say > that we are nearly finished with this start-up work. We have over 46 > member organizations from every region of the world. We are truly > diverse and international, and interested in working within ICANN to > create positive domain name policies for the Internet. > > But we are dismayed by our reception to the DNSO: by a deadline on > the cybersquatting definition and arbitration procedures that passed > before we could elect our representatives to participate; by a report > from Working Group A that did not even bother to explicitly > acknowledge our absence; and by the push for speed at the expense of > participation, buy-in, and legitimacy. > > This is not the right way to begin a new institution and this is not the > way to recognize and welcome the new energy and opportunity of our > Constituency. We think there is time for the DNSO with NCDNHC > elected participation to review the WG-A Report; we think there is > time to take a step back and get the process right. > > Conclusion: > > We, the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency, have > met our commitment: to build a robust, diverse and active non- > commercial constituency. We ask you, the ICANN Interim Board, to > meet your commitment to make us full-fledged members of the > DNSO, and to create structure first and policy second. > > We ask that you return the full WIPO Cybersquatting definition and > mandatory arbitration procedures to the DNSO for review and > participation by all of its now-organized constituencies. Please don't > take the risk of proceeding with bad feeling and bad policy. > > The Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency > > --- > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
