[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]

[JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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