Re: [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]

["John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The USA. TLD is property of American Webmasters, Inc. and any attempt to steal 
this business
product will be met with a lawsuit.

This is the official position of AWI.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joe Baptista" <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:53 AM
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]

> 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