OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES WORKING GROUP

[Rubber Duck]

SUMMARY

This is the final version of the GNSO IDN Working Group Outcomes Report. This report provides a written summary of areas of broad agreement, support and discussions of the GNSO IDN-WG on issues for consideration of the GNSO Council regarding further GNSO policy development activities on IDN issues for the generic top level domain (gTLD) space.

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm

[Rubber Duck]

And this is what I took away from this document:


4.1.7. Priority Rights for new gTLD strings and new domain names:

4.1.7a. Agreement that priority rights for new strings on the top-level do not derive from existing strings.


4.1.7b. Agreement that applications for IDN gTLDs may face challenges/objections, for instance based on claims of intellectual property rights (IPR).


4.1.7c. Agreement that priority rights for new domain names do not derive from existing domain name strings as such, but may, for instance, derive from established IPR.

[Drewbert]

Isn't the ICANN process of not letting Registrants have any say in the matter such a lovely system?

Working group stuffed with big business suits.

[Rubber Duck]

To be fair the ICANN structure is formed of constituencies and the GNSO is really the constituency of the gTLD Registeries more than anything, so it is not surprising in a way that it is full of suits.

What is apparent, is that this particular constituency is much better organised and motivated than the rest. You can just tell that by how up to date the info is on their secton of the ICANN site.

Personally, I find it reassuring that the gTLD registries seem to be properly organised, but yes you are probably right. Money talks.

Originally Posted by Drewbert

Isn't the ICANN process of not letting Registrants have any say in the matter such a lovely system?

Working group stuffed with big business suits.