ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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]

  • To: "Ga" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: 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]
  • From: "John Palmer" <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 09:53:48 -0600


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






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>