[Pso-discuss] Supplemental Names Council Recommendations on New TLDs

[Louis Touton <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
http://www.pso.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/pso-discuss