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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

I am not so adamant.

But I somehow find myself thinking partially the same thing.

Perhaps if I look to a year from now I would wholeheartedly agree.

I am more concerned with how this may further the digital divide.

Sincerely,
Eric

Malcolm Dean wrote:

> 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