Re: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

John, thanks for the detailed reply.

Actually the only question that I would like to see answered pertains to the 
following:  

ICANN has put forward the proposition that "Strings must not infringe the 
existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under
generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law."

As issue then is whether Inclusive Namespace TLDs enjoy existing legal rights 
that might be infringed by an applicant string.  Likely that's for either the 
Dispute Resolution Panelists or the Courts to decide.

best regards,
Danny



--- On Sun, 6/29/08, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?
> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 1:38 PM
> The WorldRoot has a pretty good list: http://worldroot.net
> 
> There are some that used to be operational but are not
> currently operational. There
> is a debate within the TLDA (www.tldainc.org) on how to
> classify those TLDs
> that were once operational but that now have been shut
> down.  You have to remember
> that ICANNs actions caused many operators to go out of
> business.
> 
> The TLDA operates a public discussion list that anyone can
> join. The archives are
> available at http://lists.tldainc.org/public
> 
> One of the missions of the TLDA is to produce what is
> called a "TapRoot" which
> is a list of all known TLDs, including colliders. Its not
> meant to be used as an operational
> root zone file (since it has colliders), but at least there
> will be a record.
> 
> I know that the next question will be "Well, are you
> proposing that ICANN should have
> to respect every TLD that was ever claimed by someone, even
> if it isn't operational?" and
> "What list should ICANN use when deciding what TLDs
> require the consent of the current
> TLD holder before they will accept an application?"
> 
> Those are both good questions and require some analysis in
> order to be answered. There
> are, however, TLDs that ARE operational (.AMERICA, .EARTH,
> .LION, .USA, .Z - those
> are mine) as well as many others (.COM2, .ONLINE, .ETC,
> .NOT) - those are AtlanticRoot
> TLDS (Leah Gallegos) as well as some non-Profit/Private
> ones like .NGO, .NPO and .BRIDGE.
> 
> We also have our own SRS type of registry system called the
> Inclusive Namespace Registry
> System (INRS) that has been online for over 6 years
> (www.adns.net is one registrar that uses
> this system).
> 
> So, while it may be something that needs to be sorted out,
> there are some clear-cut cases - TLDs
> that have been operational for a decade or more, in some
> cases.  I think it would be a good idea
> to support the TLDA in its attempt to collect all known
> data about all known TLDs that are out
> there. This would be a good starting point for ICANN if
> they were so inclined to be fair to existing
> TLD operators.
> 
> John
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Danny Younger"
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "John Palmer"
> <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 12:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they Listen?
> 
> 
> > John,
> >
> > just for the purposes of furthering discussion on this
> point, could you point us to a single resource that lists
> every Inclusive 
> > namespace TLD?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Danny
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 6/29/08, John Palmer
> <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: John Palmer
> <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [ga] A Proposal for ICANN - Will they
> Listen?
> >> To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Sunday, June 29, 2008, 12:55 PM
> >> Here is an idea:
> >>
> >> If ICANN wanted to be fair about things, they
> could go a
> >> long way in cleaning
> >> up their reputation with the whole internet
> community if
> >> they give a nod to the
> >> Inclusive Namespace in the following way:
> >>
> >> Make it a requirement that if you want to bid on a
> new TLD
> >> in the ICANN
> >> system under the policy that was just approved,
> and if the
> >> TLD you are
> >> bidding on is already operational in the Inclusive
> >> Namespace, that there be
> >> a requirement that the bidder get the permission
> of the
> >> current TLD holder to
> >> do this.
> >>
> >> If I wanted to make a bid on .ABC, and if .ABC was
> already
> >> operational
> >> in the Inclusive Namespace, then I would have to
> do a deal
> >> with the current
> >> operator of .ABC, either buying him out or making
> him a
> >> partner.
> >>
> >> This way, ICANN doesn't look like a thief and
> indeed
> >> would get a boost
> >> in their reputation amongst a large part of the
> internet
> >> that doesn't like them
> >> very much.
> >>
> >> Now, that assumes that ICANN is interested in its
> >> reputation and in really
> >> serving all of the community. If all they are
> doing is
> >> grabbing for money and
> >> care about little else, then this proposal will
> fall on
> >> deaf ears.
> >>
> >> I guess we can always hope, because at this point
> its all
> >> anyone has (other
> >> than litigation, which I know for a fact is being
> planned
> >> as we speak - just
> >> got off a two hour conference call with some folks
> >> regarding that).
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >
> >
> >