Re: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group: response needed

[Sam BAVAFA <s.bavafa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi john,

For your information,

In France, the name of cities were blocked. It means that cannes.fr could
not be registered by someone else than the City institution. After some
years of inaction from many cities, and the fact that many people or
companies has the same name than the cities (ex. Champagne.fr) the registry
decided to send a registered letter to the french mayors and let them know
that if they are not protecting their name within 6 months, they may loose
them. The registry (Afnic) sent also all forms, registrars infos, prefilled
registrations papers etc... To them.

6 months later, more than 50% of the cities were not replied to the letter
(we have 36,000 official towns and cities).

Many cities complained to the government about this problem that they have
not their domain name and this is not acceptable.

Now, there will be a new law in France that will very easely give back a
regular domain registred honestely and legally by mister Montebourg.fr to
the city.

This demonstration means that it is not suffiscient to block only by claims
and for a period of time. It is not because someone do not claim that he
must not be the only beneficiary of the second level domain. By the way, and
because all coutry codes and essential names* are known now, they should be
blocked if not reclaimed by the regular beneficiary;

* By essential names i am talking about terms like terrorist, pedophily
etc... In France, we consider that a good guy who own a domain called
nazi.com to fight against, can tomorrow sell it to the bad guys. So why make
money on some essential names that can cause so much collateral damages.

Thank you for your attention.


Best Regards
Cordialement

www.Domaine.fr
www.Domaine.info
www.DomaiNews.fr


> De : John Berryhill <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Société : John Berryhill, Ph.d., Esq.
> Répondre à : <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date : Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:18:18 -0400
> À : 'Marcus Faure' <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com'"
> <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc : 'Tim Ruiz' <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Registrar Constituency'
> <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Ray Fassett' <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Liz
> Williams' <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05:  Reserved Names Working Group:
> response needed
> 
> 
>> The cc.com business
>> relies on confusing users and leaves them in the hands of a commercial
>> institution with no oversight,
> 
> Such issues are not inherent in the two-letter strings themselves.  If there
> is an issue relating to how the strings are used, that is probably outside
> of the scope of domain name policy per se.
> 
> There is no reason why an entity named Hu is required to be beholden to the
> nation of Hungary for that entity's inability to register its name as a
> domain name, any more than endeavors in the fields of electrical engineering
> or information technology (ee.jobs, it.jobs) should be blocked by "claims"
> of the nations of Estonia and Italy.
> 
> Must Procter & Gamble buy out the nation of Papua New Guinea simply to
> register their own trademark as a domain name?
> 
> PS - UM, MR. and MS. user, this sort of NO IQ BS BY policy fiat IS bad PR
> for US, of the kind that SO makes ME want TO throw things AT MY TV (IE - BE
> IT AN AX or similar instrument).
> 
> (That sentence is brought to by the ccTLD's for Palestine, United States
> Minor Outlying Islands, Mauritania, Montserrat, Norway, Iraq, Bahamas,
> Belarus Iceland, Puerto Rico, the United States, Somalia, Montenegro, Tonga,
> Austria, Myanmar, Tuvalu, Ireland, Netherlands Antilles, or Aland Islands.)
>