Date Sent: May 21, 2000
To the Protocol Council:
Subject: Supplemental Names Council Recommendations on New TLDs
On 14 May, I advised you of a recommendation concerning new TLDs
approved by the Names Council of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting
Organization on 18-19 April. As I also stated in my 14 May
message, the Names Council indicated that it might forward
supplemental recommendations to the Board in the near future.
On 19 May, the Names Council approved a supplemental statement,
dealing with "Famous Trade-Marks and the operation of the Domain
Name System," which appears below. I am forwarding it to you
under Article VI, Section 2(d) of ICANN Bylaws for any comment
you may have on the implications this recommendation may
have within the Protocol Council's area of expertise.
The ICANN Board is scheduled to consider the Names Council's
recommendations at its meeting on 15-16 July in Yokohama. It would
be helpful if the Protocol Council could provide the Board any
comments it may have on any protocol-policy implications of the
Names Council recommendations by the end of June.
Best regards,
Louis Touton
ICANN Secretary
cc: Steve Coya, PSO Secretariat
Ken Stubbs, Names Council Chair
Michael Roberts, ICANN President
Andrew McLaughlin, ICANN Senior Adviser
=======================================================
19 May 2000
DNSO Names Council Resolution on Famous Trade-Marks and the
operation of the Domain Name System
The Names Council recognizes the enormous work undertaken by
Working Group B. The Names Council acknowledges that according
to its final report, Working Group B has reached consensus on
three points, namely:
1.Some type of mechanism, yet to be determined, is necessary
in connection with famous trademarks and the operation of
the Domain Name System.
2.There does not appear to be the need for the creation of a
universally famous marks list at this point in time.
3.The protection afforded to trademark owners should depend
upon the type of top-level domains that are added to the
root.
With regards to points (1) and (3), the NC notes that the Working
Group members could not reach consensus on the type of mechanism
that should be incorporated into the roll-out of new gTLDs
(point (1)), which is understandable given their consensus in
point (3) that the protection should likely vary depending on the
type of top-level domain.
The NC concludes that there is community consensus and recommends
that there should be varying degrees of protection for
intellectual property during the startup phase of new top-level
domains. Therefore, the NC recommends that the ICANN Board make
clear that nothing in the general consensus items, or areas of
non-consensus, should be construed as creating immunity from the
UDRP or other legal proceeding should a domain name registrant
in a chartered top-level domain violate the charter or other
legal enforceable rights. The NC notes that the principles of
differentiated gTLDs (from WG-C) may provide additional assistance
in avoiding confusion.
With regards to item (2) on universally famous marks, the NC
concludes that there is no consensus in the community at the
present time that such a list should be adopted by ICANN.
The NC also recommends to the ICANN Board that it take note of the
Working Group B report, including the submissions by
participating parties.
The NC would like to express its gratitude to the hard work of
Michael D. Palage, Kathryn Kleiman, and Philip Sheppard in steering
the Working Group and seeking to guide them towards consensus
on the difficult set of issues they were assigned.
_______________________________________________
PSO-Discuss mailing list
PSO-Discuss@pso.icann.org
http://www.pso.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/pso-discuss
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 15:37:17 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)