Re: [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>]

Thank you Jeff,

I believe this may be the perfect time for you to explain to the rest of
us why
you believe it is important to stick with old RFC's.

It would seem that the Net and/or the WWW changes quite quickly but that
RFC's move quite slowly.

The only forum that seems to keep up with constant advances seems to be
the
GA and that appears to be because it does not create RFC's.

It also currently does not seem to censor, which allows it to handle
problems arising
tomorrow - today.

i.e. ccTLDs of Arabic design - we will discuss and have great input prior
to any other forum
yet we will put forth no RFC.

Please respond.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Daryl and all stakeholders or interested parties,
>
>   VEry good brief Rundown here Daryl.  And one that has been presented
> in par or in full by several other stakeholders on more than one
> occasion including yours truly.
>
>   One important point that perhaps you forgot or had not considered
> is that the ICANN BoD and Staff had and IMHO still has is to
> abide by RFC1591 which the ICANN BoD as far as RFC's
> has touted to be very supportive of.  Yet in this instance (RFC 1591)
> it decided in the MdR Meeting of Nov 2000 drastically deviated
> from in preference to a lottery selection process for new TLD's.
> We [INEGroup] along with many other groups warned that such
> a method would be a huge mistake with long term ramifications
> BEFORE the ICANN BoD and staff decided without stakeholder
> consensus or vote to dictate.  Now the proverbial turkey has come
> home to roost.
>   It is for some of the reasons in your rundown and my above comments
> that it is paramount that Stakeholders/users must be in the majority
> on the ICANN BoD with 9 seats.  However given the ALSC
> "Final Report" and denial of the polls and comments submitted on
> this forum is is unlikely that such will occur.  If not, ICANN will
> never be ligitimate in the mid to long term...
>
> Daryl Tempesta wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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