Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

["Tim Langdell, PhD" <langdell@technologist.com>]

My own situation might be unique (is it?) but nonetheless frustrating ... I
was the first to register "edu.com" And we owned and operated the site for
some months before getting a matter-of-fact letter from NSI telling us that
they had reconsidered issuing this domain name. They said that because some
older DNS servers might get confused between "edu" as an SLD and a TLD, they
had decided to make this a domain not available to anyone (reserved as
example.com is and the single digit/letter domains).

We argued, we fought. But they were adamant and our site got switched off.
But they promised us that if they ever changed their policy in respect to
this domain they would reinstate ownership to us again.

Then, years later, in about 1998, with no communication with us at all, they
put the domain name back in to the general pool and someone (big surprise)
grabbed it.

And so we started the complaints all over again .. with no movement
whatsoever after 3 years of trying. Any one got any thoughts?

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "(Kristy McKee)" <k@widgital.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 1:02 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes


> Hello Kristy,
>
> Friday, April 06, 2001, 1:50:46 PM, Kristy McKee wrote:
>
> > The Internet worked better when there was a monopoly.
> > The rules were
> > simple:  first come first serve.
> > Problems were easily resolved over
> > trademark and copyright issues within the courts, etc.  I think ICANN is
> > several steps backwards.
>
> That's not entirely accurate.  NSI's flawed domain dispute policy
> enabled a trademark holder to get a domain actually shut off until the
> respondent actually won in court.
>
> I don't consider that to be preferable, while I also agree the UDRP is
> fatally flawed, at the least it doesn't turn off a domain until a
> decision has been made, even if those decisions are being made in a
> manner inconsistent with law and by a method which gives automatic
> preference to the complainant.
>
> I also take exception with Roberto's giving ICANN credit for
> "breaking" NSI's monopoly.  That was going to happen regardless, the
> green paper and white paper processes led to that.  ICANN just simply
> assisted along a process that they didn't initiate nor decide on.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html