Re: [ga] ICANN vs. Reality

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all assembly members,

  Excellent points and argument here Richard.  And indeed IMHO
quite right as well.  It seems that the results of MdR 2000 are coming home
to roost unfortunately.  But these results can be fixed if ICANN
and the Registries such as Affilias is willing to be reasonable.  However
the entrenchment of the ICANN BoD, staff and some registries would
seem to indicate clearly that to correct the many obvious problems
with the RAA in it's current skewed form in any reasonable time frame
is unlikely.  I hope that I am wrong about that...  None the less, Allans
rather disillusioned arguments as to Louis's approach to lessening
legal actions in a number of TLD Name Spaces and future TLD name
spaces, will be filed in increasing numbers and increasing varsity.

  INEGRoup predicted this over two years ago now, and so it has
come to pass...  ( See archives of the DNSO GA for further details here )

Richard Henderson wrote:

> I applaud Jeff Davies.
>
> It seems to me that Afilias just made up the rules as they went along.
>
> They allowed people like Jeff Davies to challenge .info sunrise names at
> WIPO.
>
> So Jeff Davies duly went ahead and challenged some.
>
> At that stage, Afilias had not clarified that he could not obtain the name
> through the WIPO challenge.
>
> Then they spotted the anomaly, and tried to block what he had done, but it
> was too late, because he had already "done what he was allowed to do" before
> they evolved the rules to stop him.
>
> Then they tried to freeze his names.
>
> It may be true that Jeff Davies was "playing a gap in the system", but that
> had more to do with the incompetence of Afilias than anything else. The
> Afilias .info fiasco will long be cited at business schools as a model of
> ineptitude, corruption and farce.
>
> Meanwhile, I say: if Jeff Davies managed to get one up on the overbearing IP
> community, then good luck to him. Anyone else could have done the same.
> Furthermore, isn't it time TM rights were confined to a single,
> specifically-designated TLD like .reg and time to stop big business annexing
> swathes of the namespace just because they're big and powerful enough to do
> so?
>
> The English language belongs to all of us and it is preposterous that
> generic names in our linguistic heritage should be reserved and the rest of
> us are locked out.
>
> Meanwhile... I continue to ask: Where are the Registry Evaluation Reports
> due to made available over 6 months ago (according to Appendix U of the
> ICANN/Registry agreement)? And why has Dan Halloran refused even to
> acknowledge my publicised and substantive questions about fraud and serious
> concerns regarding the New TLDs process, even after 200+ days?
>
> Bottom line: a corrupt administration which protects friends and vested
> interests but dismally fails to be accountable to the vast majority of
> ordinary users. And, of course, they expelled the elected representation
> from the ICANN Board.
>
> These statements above are, at least, my personal views. I believe many
> other people share them.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Allan Liska <allan@allan.org>
> Cc: <touton@icann.org>; <michael@palage.com>; gen full <ga-full@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 6:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN vs. Reality
>
> > Alan and all assembly members,
> >
> > Allan Liska wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: MD5
> > >
> > > Hello John,
> > >
> > > Wednesday, December 4, 2002, 11:58:50 AM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > JBPDJD> L. Touton:
> > >
> > > JBPDJD> "In fact, the offering of defensive registrations appears likely
> to minimize
> > > JBPDJD> some of the start-up issues that can arise in a TLD's
> introduction. Giving
> > > JBPDJD> those with registered trademark rights a simple vehicle to block
> conflicting
> > > JBPDJD> registrations should minimize the potential for one type of
> lawsuit that can
> > > JBPDJD> complicate a TLD's introduction."
> > >
> > > JBPDJD> Reality:
> > >
> > > JBPDJD> ICANN AND REGISTRARS SUED OVER SUNRISE PERIOD OF NEW TLDS
> > > JBPDJD> An Orlando Business Journal report suggests that ICANN and
> > > JBPDJD> registrars including Afilias have been sued by a Florida man
> > > JBPDJD> over the use of sunrise periods for new TLDs.  The suit
> > > JBPDJD> claims ICANN required registrars to include the sunrise
> > > JBPDJD> provisions in the new TLDs.  ICANN declined comment.
> > > JBPDJD>
> http://orlando.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2002/12/02/story3.html
> > >
> > > I don't think those two statements are conflicting at all
> >
> >   Well I am sure that John, like myself and our legal staff are not
> > overly surprised and such a statement from a ill informed layman...
> >
> > >
> > > Specifically, the first quote says "minimize the potential for one
> > > type of lawsuit".  It does not state that there will be no lawsuits.
> >
> >   Indeed true.  However Louis's statement is no less in error
> > as to John's comments and reference.  In fact he is showing the
> > contrary.  Louis's legal prowess was shown very clearly in
> > Karl Auerbach's successful legal action against ICANN, amongst
> > a host of other legal actions pending against ICANN's "Accredited"
> > Registries, and Registrars and those that have been settled.  The
> > introduction of more such legal actions will continue and rightfully
> > so as the TLD process as well as the "Accreditation" determination
> > is of questionable value or legality.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Where domains are concerned it seems there are always people willing
> > > to file lawsuits, and of course there are always lawyers willing to
> > > take people's money -- whether or not the case has any validity (not
> > > saying this is not a valid case, I don't really know the details).
> >
> >   TLD's are TOP Level Domains, not Domains, Allan...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > No matter how a new domain is introduced you are going to have people
> > > who don't get the name they want, there is no way to prevent that from
> > > happening, and inevitably someone is going to sue -- I hardly think
> > > you can blame people's propensity to file lawsuits on ICANN.
> >
> >   I and it seems that a growing number of others obviously disagree with
> > this statement as stated.  It ia also clear that a number of legal
> jurisdictions
> > both internal to the US and especially outside the US, are also not
> > in agreement with what you state here as well.  ICANN can easily
> > avoid any legal action and the BoD and Staff know what they need to
> > do to so.  Louis's comment above, is not a good method obviously...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > allan
> > > - --
> > > Allan Liska
> > > allan@allan.org
> > > http://www.allan.org
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: 2.6
> > >
> > > iQCVAwUAPe5AEykg6TAvIBeFAQG4tgP/RPzQyCKs62HJiPIpZSuZ4y+H6GLKUqDR
> > > aeyRpQHTBxDjt1XOcug8dRFJTfj2/8RPrDyOBCisbqiFZ/CiYATXCiO3BorHsDxo
> > > H8fll4KFMiS3PAQp/IyNvItUgtPcTe7ENIjS4rm2x+VTRL2KhJJCg1fjPdcb6P0d
> > > /TUKc6cc3Rc=
> > > =g0oc
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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