Re: [IFWP] Revised bylaw Article VI-B (DNSO subject-matter

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

John and all,

John Charles Broomfield wrote:

> > > > > And, on the other side of the coin, if ICANN ever adds a privately
> > > > > "owned" TLD, ICANN will face a whole raft of legal challenges
> > > > > from other people who want their private TLD in the root.
> > > >
> > > > This is completely true.  They could not be exclusionary, on a
> > > > selective basis.  They have to either be all-inclusive, or
> > > > all-exclusive.  Half-way is not going to cut it.
> > >
> > > That's right.  And it will be all-exclusive, because the
> > > "all-inclusive" model requires choices being made that will be
> > > contested in court.  So the only new TLDs that get in the root are
> > > going to be run in the public interest, not for private gain.
> >
> > Kent, read it again. What I said also excluded the TLD's you are
> > promoting. When I say "exclusionary" I meant 100% of everything.
> > Can you read?
>
> I think that what Kent means by all-exclusive means that ICANN will not
> grant ownership of any TLDs, or to put it another way, will keep ownership
> of all and any TLDs it decides to put in the root. Doing anything else is
> asking for trouble on a major scale.

  The ICANN cannot own any TLD's it does not have or obtain a TM
on.  Conversely the ICANN cannot deny entry into the root legally
any TLD's that it does not hold a TM on either, for that reason alone.
If the ICANN ot the DNSO would take that position, it would be in
direct restraint of trade.

>
> No matter what ICANN does (be it include privately owned TLDs or not), it
> *will* face lawsuits.

  Not necessarily.  Although if the ICANN takes a stand on excluding
any TLD's on a biased basis, it would likely find itself in a legal situation.

> My guess is that deciding to include privately owned
> TLDs is just asking for an endless stream of lawsuits, each of them battling
> away at each other and at ICANN.

  Again not necessarily.

> However, *not* including privately owned
> TLDs will just get a few lawsuits (IOD and Iperdome probably?) which as soon
> as they are proven groundless, should basically shut the door on that
> sillyness. (OTOH, if IOD & Iperdome were to win, then we'd have chaos...).

LOL!  This is an interesting self sustaining and somewhat slanted view
to be sure, and as such is paramount to providing good evidence in favor
of IOD, Iperdome or any other TLD that has a TM filed and approved
irrespective of jurisdiction, BTW.

>
>
> Any TLDs to be put in the root should be done so in a non-proprietary way,
> or fully belonging to ICANN.

  WHy should ICANN be required to "OWN" the TLD. For this to occur?

> To say that the CORE TLDs are proprietary to
> CORE is nonsense. The interest of CORE is in getting those TLDs or *ANY*
> TLDs in the IANA roots, so that the registrars members of CORE can go out
> and start selling them like crazy. I'm sure that the registrars members of
> CORE can't give a damn about who runs the registry backend as long as its
> done safely, cheaply, securely and fairly to everyone involved, which would
> seem to point at the registry backend functions being up for tender every
> now and then.

  This is a sure way of fragmenting the DNS.

>
>
> NSI continues to make the point again and again that private ownership and
> control of TLDs is dangerous to say the least.

  I don't agree fully with this slanted biased statement.

>
>
> Yours, John Broomfield.
>
>

Regards,


--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208