[Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities- Building a truly open and international dialogue

[Rodel Urani]

This issues impacts an effective decision making to critical situations where ISOC is expected to effectively deliver.


From: Rudi Vansnick 
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Patrick Vande Walle 
Cc: ISOC Delegates Chapter 
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society 2011 IPR activities- Building a truly open and international dialogue



Op 22-jan-2011 3, om 10:59 heeft Patrick Vande Walle het volgende geschreven:



  On 22 Jan 2011, at 05:36, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:


    I think I heard at ICANN Cartagena that ISOC is precluded from advocating for new TLDs as part of its charter or its funding agreements.  I might be mistaken, but someone from ISOC said they'd look into any such prohibitions. I looked over the ISOC sight and was unable to find anything on this.


  If that is the case, we have  problem. On the one hand, chapters go out and express positions that HQ cannot/will not support. It seems that HQ needs to shut up more often than not because it needs PIR money. Not sure this is economic censorsorhip or some kind of blackmail, but anyway ISOC HQ is prevented to express positions on certain issues.

  Should the chapters shut up to protect HQ's financial interests ?  Frankly, this is uncomfortable for both sides. The deafening silence from ISOC on the new gTLD TLM issues are an embarassment to chapters, 
  and the positions of the chapters are an embarassment to ISOC.  Are we growing apart ? 


    And Eric, be careful not to generalize about TLDs. City-TLDs developed as public interest digital infrastructure should not be considered a significant concern to IP stakeholders.  See the report from the IGF Vilnius entitled City-TLD Governance and Best Practices for more on this.


  Any way, even within the traditional trademark business, TM owners are expected to take actions to protect their TM. Defensive registrations are part of that. Why these guys want a different more favourable in the TLD environment that they get elsewhere is 

  RFC 1591, on which the whole ICANN circus is based, makes it clear that this is outside the scope of DNS administration. Again, one would expect ISOC, as the keeper of the RFC orthodoxy, to remind this to all parties. 
4. Rights to Names

   1) Names and Trademarks

      In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
      rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
      no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
      information to both parties.

      The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
      status.  It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
      anyone else's Trademark.

PatrickI fully agree with Patrick's statement. TM are already a privilege a citizen can not dispose of. And as stated, DNS has no legal rights to judge ownership of an intellectual property. If so, it's clear that a citizen could also claim ownership of his/her intellectual property being the content published on his/her website.

Rudi Vansnick





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Chapter-delegates mailing list
Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20110122/c3afd90e/attachment.htm>