[ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?

["Malcolm Dean" <malcolmdean@earthlink.net>]

TLDs are as relevant today as MS-DOS's naming convention. They are the
result of a database design, not a natural law.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryl Tempesta" <lyradius@yahoo.com>
To: "Bruce Young" <byoung651@attbi.com>; "Jeff Williams"
<jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; "Richard Henderson"
<richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <gtld@gtldregistries.org>; "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@dnso.org>;
"ICANN At Large Forum" <forum@atlargestudy.org>; "icann board address"
<icann-board@icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:07 PM
Subject: RE: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the
accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?


>
> > ICANN should stipulate
> > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > reserve the rest,
> > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
>
> I have talked to Lawyers which represent Verisign AKA
> Network Solutions. I was told that buisness clients
> complain all the time about being advised to buy up
> EVERY domain in every TLD for every trademark they
> own.
>
> Bruces suggestion in a very good one in my oppinion
> because in some form it is inevitable.
>
> Here is why; I think that ICANN will either do  it
> volunterally or the US congress will step in - perhaps
> as the result of a high profile Supreme Court case.
> Consider these senarios.
>
> a) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> introduced, pressure from the atLarge and millions of
> individual domain owners will be successfull in
> lobbying ICANN for TM free TLDS
>
> Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Market
> saturation
>
> b)   Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> introduced, Laws from congress passed due to the
> pressure of millions of individual domain owners will
> then be successfull.
>
> Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Legal
> intervention including new laws.
>
>
> Conclusion: it is inevitable that there will be both
> TM and non TM requirements in TLDs.
>
> ICANN build the framework now,
> while you have the choice how.
>
> Daryl Tempesta
> hotdot.com
>
> --- Bruce Young <byoung651@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff wrote:
> >
> > >It is poignantly and disgustingly clear that
> > >the ICANN staff either cannot or will not do
> > adequate oversight
> > >of it's rubber stamped "Registrars and Registries"
> > given the
> > >events of the past year or so that have been
> > reported here
> > >and on other forums.
> >
> > Ya think?! :)
> >
> > These guys are making this SO much harder tha it
> > needs to be.  Part of the
> > problem are these ugly "sunset" periods.  Why?  If
> > the point of new TLDs is
> > new addresses for peoplke that don't havethem, why
> > are we letting the same
> > old people buy up addresses before everyone else?
> > ICANN should stipulate
> > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > reserve the rest,
> > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> >
> >
> > Bruce Young
> > Portland, Oregon
> > byoung651@attbi.com
> > http://home.attbi.com/~byoung651/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com

--
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