<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] ICANN to sell the name of its competitors (ISO, IGF, USA., TLDA..) [was: ICANN meeting notes Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG) on Introduction to new gTLDs]
- To: "Joe Baptista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ga <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [ga] ICANN to sell the name of its competitors (ISO, IGF, USA., TLDA..) [was: ICANN meeting notes Arabic Script IDN Working Group (ASIWG) on Introduction to new gTLDs]
- From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:53:30 +0100
Dear all,
I am afraid that I have to support what Joe Baptista is saying. I
know that not all Drafts become RFCs and that not RFCs become
standards. But I think time has come for the Internet community to
come up with a best practice Draft documenting the current and
resulting TLD Management.
At 16:26 02/11/2008, Joe Baptista wrote:
I am monitoring the ICANN meeting as best one can. There is an
interesting discussion at the meeting of the Arabic Script IDN
Working Group (ASIWG) today. A lot is being said that is applicable
to our community. This discussion clearly shows that the
application of FCFS rules developed by your truly are the solution
to the various problems this ICANN auction will cause. I have made
some case notes to this meeting which are as follows:
Case 1: Many corporations today use their own TLDs for web, host and
email support. This is the case in the INS - Philips, REMAX, TMF
Group, XEROX etc. etc. are all fine examples of corporations in the
INS using TLDs for internal infrastructure. One of the TLDAs
directors in fact does just this with his TLD. If the ICANN auction
does not have a means of excluding these TLDs the duplication of
them will cause major problems and technical errors for the
companies who's TLDs are duplicated.
The position of ICANN does not consider the label registered as TM,
company name, or organisation's title and people's names who
obviously have a prehemption right, with possible international
conflicts. Also, what is ICANN's legitimacy to pocket the money
resulting from the sales of a common good supported by no
international agreement or treaty ?
I note that if IBM can be registered, WIPO said that .IBM cannot.
Case 2: We must remember that ICANN has established internal
practices which are now part of public policy in the ICANN
fiasco. One of those policies is the protection of brand name and
trade mark holders. The intellectual property constituency at ICANN
and the relevant judicial process at the WIPO is now a well
established standard. It may not look good if ICANN for any reasons
chooses to ignore those standards at the TLD level. In short order
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
In the UDRP logic and texts TLDs are subject to UDRPs. UDRP's recital
does not define what a domain is. A TLD is a domain name as any other.
ICANN's bylaws prevent ICANN from being a registry. ICANN now wants
to be a registry in the ISO class (currently only ISO 3166/MA - the
ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has capacity to create new TLDs. It does
it for free).
Case 3: Operational status. An SLD is not required to be
operational for it to exist. The operational and non operational
status of an SLD does not in any way affect the operation of the TLD
zone. Only other TLDs associated with that TLDs infrastructure are
affected. Internal TLDs are not as a norm available to the public
DNS. There may be instances in which is would be prudent to carry a
non operational TLD in a zone. Many would find this radical
thinking - but it is the norm in the SLD world by default it would
easily fit into the TLD world. I simply put this out there to
generate a little thinking on operational status. Also from a legal
point of view a TLD need not be operational for a party to have a
legal claim on it.
Currently the Member(s) of the TLD Registries (ISO 3166/MA, TLDA,
private networks [cf. ICANN ICP-3 Document) do not require a TLD to
be operationally supported before being registered.
I therfore submit there is an urgent need fro an ISO 3166 extension
covering the globally accepted Names of the International
Organizations. Otherwise I suppose someone is going to register
".iso", ".igf", ".uno", ".onu", ".usa", ".eec", ".tlda", etc.
jfc
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|