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

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

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

  I will be more than happy to respond.
(See specific comments/observations to Eric's response in line below)

Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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 is not my belief that I was referring to if you read my post correctly
and with some attention to detail.  It was and still remains the ICANN
BOD's and Staff's public statement and policy to do so.

  My personal and the majority or our members opinion that
the IETF RFC's in many instances are out of date of obsolete.
However RFC 1591 is not one of those.

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

  Indeed this is quite true.  But in most instances the Net/WWW doesn't
change so quickly or dramatically as to make most of the RFC's obsolete
in the same amount of time.

>
>
> 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.

  Not really true.  There are a number of forums, some of which are
IETF forums that keep up very nicely.  As I have yet to see you
on any of those forums, perhaps you are not aware.

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

  Selective censorship has been a problem with the DNSO GA as
you know and as has been repeatedly documented on that forum
for some 2+ years now.  So I am surprised at your statement here...

>
>
> 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.

  As you perhaps do not know, there is a RFC for foreign language
ccTLD's and Domain Names.  So perhaps a review of the IETF
web site on this subject would be a good exercise for you.  But
I am sure you are referring to the very recent post from
"Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <alnajjar@any-dns.com>
see:  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03919.html
to which I believe you responded to at:
 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg03921.html
However a more detailed and in depth review of the DNSO GA
archives will reveal very little in this area of discussion or area
of issue/interest.  However I would be happy to be corrected
on this point if you can provide some URL's references from
the DNSO GA archives to the contrary...

>
>
> 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

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