[At-Large] [GTLD-WG] IRT working group report

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

"Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro> wrote:


> As I see it, at least on the IP Clearinghouse and the Globally  Protected 
> Marks List, nothing is stopping WIPO or the nations of the  world from 
> agreeing on standards and creating a trademark database. If  they create 
> it, ICANN can certainly use it. But it's far outside  ICANN's mission, not 
> to mention it's areas of expertise, for it to  take this on.

Exactly! Your whole message echoed (in a rather eloquent way) the opinion 
I've heard from many people in the UK.
In my previous message, I called the document's contents "naive" for this 
very reason.

The IRT is attempting to launch ICANN into a *major* undertaking for which 
an international agency with a much larger budget than ICANN is much better 
suited. By proceeding forward with the IRT's recommendations, ICANN will be 
tackling problems which are way outside its mission and will be dangerouly 
diverting resources away from its core missions.
The contents are naive because they follow a US-centric black/white vision 
of the world when we all know that this just isn't the case in 99% of the 
countries out there.
The contents are naive because they do not make any kind of attempt at 
estimating the budget required for ICANN to undertake such a thing. It 
quotes numbers "for illustrative purposes only".

The contents are naive because if it was so easy to wave a "magic wand" like 
the one described in this report, WIPO and the nations of this world would 
have already invented and waved it.

An alternative to the proposals would be to propose that ICANN starts a 
working group which will actively work with WIPO in establishing a trademark 
database, in collaboration with the nations of this world. This database 
would be run (and financed) by WIPO.

If every time an issue comes up, ICANN decides to re-create the wheel and to 
resolve an age-long problem by setting-up yet another cost-inducing 
half-baked process making it out to be a magic wand, I fear for ICANN's 
reputation, and its long term financial health. It risks completely 
discrediting itself by shooting itself in the foot.

That said, I trust that the ICANN Board is a lot wiser than to fall in a 
trap like that - so IMHO, At-Large should make its views known in no 
uncertain language.

Warm regards,

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html