ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    .eu and Europe too Survey on .EU policy
    posted by michael on Thursday August 08 2002, @05:49PM

    mpawlo writes "As reported by Greplaw, the European Commission has set up an on-line survey on cybersquatting for use in determining policy for the upcoming .EU top level domain. Use your opportunity to weigh in.

    [Editor's note...but first read on to hear about some problems with the survey... -mf]"



    [Editor's note: The following exchange on the ecdiscuss and ICANNEurope lists is relevant to the quality of the survey:]

    The discussion began when Alexander Svensson questioned the quality of the survey:

    And what a bad survey it is.
    You cannot send it if you don't check at least one of the following options:

    -- International Non-propietary Names of medical substances should not be registered as domain name
    -- Country names and abbreviations should not be registered
    -- International organization's names should not be registered

    That should of course *not* be mandatory!

    In addition, you cannot state whether you think a sunrise period is good or not -- only for how long it should last.

    Best regards,
    /// Alexander

    This prompted a call for corrections in the survey.
    Hi Alexander and all,

    Perhaps the Commission can correct these errors? Is there anyone from the Commission who deals with .eu on this list these days?

    Regards

    Steve Dyer

    The EU's response was this:
    Dear All,

    I am sorry about the problems experienced with the question related to
    "exclusions from registration". To my regret, these problems cannot be
    solved and, thus, the answers to this question will not be taken into
    account when evaluating the results of the survey.

    As regards Mr.Svensson's comment regarding the sunrise period, I would like
    to mention that, first, the sunrise period is already foreseen in Article
    5(1)(b) of the .eu Regulation and, second, it is possible to make whatever
    comments you want to make in the box provided for that purpose at the end of
    the survey.

    Best regards,

    Víctor Sáez
    European Commission - Industrial Property Unit

    To this, Jeanette Hofmann added:
    Aren't surveys supposed to produce neutral, unbiased results? Alexander's findings raise the question whether this questionnaire really meets general standards of survey design.
    And, Alexander Svensson replied to Victor Saez:
    Article 5(1)(b) states that public policy shall include:
    public policy on speculative and abusive registration of domain names including the possibility of registrations of domain names in a phased manner to ensure appropriate temporary opportunities for the holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and/or Community law and for public bodies to register their names;
    I read this as *possibility* of a sunrise period. Similarly, the survey question starts with the following phrase:
    When a new domain such as .eu is launched the Registry can allow owners of intellectual property and other rights a priority period [...]
    It can, but must not. I hope that people are sufficiently aware of the sunrise period problems during the launch of the new generic TLDs and fill in comments in the box at the end of the survey.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • exchange
  • questioned the quality of the survey
  • a call for corrections in the survey
  • response
  • added
  • replied
  • As reported by Greplaw
  • on-line survey on cybersquatting
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Survey on .EU policy | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Survey on .EU policy
    by tlr (reversethis-{gro.tsixe-ton-seod} {ta} {relsseor}) on Thursday August 08 2002, @10:10PM (#8432)
    User #34 Info | http://log.does-not-exist.org/
    When trying to view this beast with Mozilla, you get no less than 9 JavaScript errors.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Survey on .EU policy
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday August 09 2002, @05:09AM (#8445)
    User #2810 Info
    The problem which Víctor Sáez says can't be solved looks quite trivial to me, simply use a none of the above or other checkbox. Of course doing that while the survey is ongoing would further skew the data. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com