ICANN "agreement(s) for / between CentralNic & WIPO ??

[Graham Schreiber <graham_schreiber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello ICANN:        cc:   NTIA, DoC, Jones Day, WIPO, Garth Bruen & Senator 
Leahy.   [[ 4CCA & VAED - for good measure! ]]


ICANN, c/o Jones Day:    In accordance with your Clients affirmation:  
"Whereas, ICANN is committed to operating in an open and transparent manner"  
and my Civil Lawsuit # 13-1812, against your client, for failing to enforce the 
RAA Sections 3.7.7.3 an 3.7.7.9  ~  I wish to have you oblige my request by 
furnishing the "agreement(s) between CentralNic and ICANN ..."  that WIPO is 
talking about, just below.

For the thoughtful consideration of parties outside ICANN, I'd like to 
illustrate that other Companies have been "victimized" by CentralNic's 
"Contributory Infringement" and False Designation ccTLDs, which beyond flaccid 
ICANN Rules, are directly violating a United States Law # 15 USC § 1125 - False 
designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden, 

Those four (4) gigantic firms, who've been "fleeced" by WIPO for what amounts 
to a "Racket" system, accepted by ICANN, to protect CentralNic are:

WIPO D2009-1741 Coke-a-Cola
WIPO D2013-0746 National Car Rental
WIPO D2011-1416 Oakley Glasses
WIPO D2012-0249 Zippo

From Wikipedia:   A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a 
problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be 
affected, or would not otherwise exist.  Particularly, the potential problem 
may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may 
be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this 
party.  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)

As a USPTO  "Registered" Trademark Holder, I fully anticipate my  "Day in 
Court"  to be granted  [ Details at 4CCA Case # 13-1812 ]  so that I may bring 
this injustice; and chronic harming too USPTO Brands to an end.

Further; and most critically, as catalyst to this information being made 
public, it will help the United States Department of Justice,  prevent further 
"harm to American consumers" from occurring, which is their sole purpose.

Thank you very much.


Sincerely, 

Graham Schreiber, Pro Se.

> ICANN/DNSO
> DNSO Mailling lists archives
> [nc-udrp]
> 
> <<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>
> [nc-udrp] Follow-up from WIPO on .uk.com and similar extensions
> 
> To: "NC UDRP" <nc-udrp@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [nc-udrp] Follow-up from WIPO on .uk.com and similar extensions
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:42:53 +0100
> Organization: AIM
> Sender: owner-nc-udrp@xxxxxxxx
> Forwarded from the Business Constituency mail list:
>  
> Please see below, a response from the Head of Legal Development at WIPO, Mr 
> Christian Wichard, pertaining to the abovementioned extensions and the UDRP's 
> applicability to these extensions:- 
> 
> 
> In the "Terms and Conditions" of CentralNic, the company offering this kind 
> of registrations, Clause 14 states: "CentralNic may at its sole option, 
> cancel the registration or suspend registration of the domain name if a. 
> ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction; b. following the ICANN 
> Uniform-Domain-Name-Dispute-Resolution-Policy the name has been judged to 
> infringe the trademark or other intellectual property of the complainant; c. 
> the use of the domain name is illegal; d. if there is a breach of these terms 
> and conditions; including without limitation, clause 1; e. the continued use 
> of a domain name could cause technical problems on the Internet."
> 
> In two recent decisions, WIPO Panelists have found that the UDRP does not 
> apply to domain names registered under these (or similar) terms and 
> conditions.
> 
> The decision, rendered in case No. D2001-1484 
> (http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1484.html), 
> concerned a third level domain name registered in ".uk.com".  In that 
> decision, the Panelist found as follows:
> 
> "The Panel questions whether the new/current CentralNic terms and conditions 
> properly and effectively incorporate the Policy.  There appears to be no 
> express incorporation of the Policy...
> 
> 
> The Panel has not been shown the terms of the agreement(s) between CentralNic 
> and ICANN <<<<< This would indicate participation by VeriSign & Network 
> Solutions >>>>> 
> 
> but it may be that the only entity properly subject to the Policy in respect 
> of the '.uk.com' domain names is CentralNic itself." 
> 
> The Panel therefore found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the Complaint 
> insofar as the "uk.com" domain names were concerned.  The panel emphasized, 
> however, that it did "not seek to circumscribe how a future panel might 
> approach the issue."  
> 
> In case No D2002-0895 
> (http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0895.html), 
> i9nvolving a ".eu.com" domain name, the Panel held 
> 
> "There is, however, nowhere in the Terms and Conditions...any explicit 
> reference to the Policy nor to any obligation to submit to a mandatory 
> administrative proceeding; on the contrary, the reference to the exclusive 
> jurisdiction of the English courts seems to point to the contrary. 
> Furthermore, the wording of the clause...seems to mean that the Registrar has 
> the option to follow a decision or not, and in any case there is no mention 
> of any possibility to transfer a domain name to a complainant, and, further, 
> reference is made only to "infringement" of a trademark and not to the type 
> of finding that Paragraph 4 of the Policy is concerned with...This lack of 
> legal clarity about the applicability of the Policy and about the resulting 
> obligation for Respondent to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding 
> is a particularly serious matter in the context of the simplified written 
> administrative procedure under the Policy, which, in the view of the Panel, 
> must h a! ! ve a clear legal basis...In view of those considerations the 
> Panel must - regrettably and reluctantly - come to the conclusion that it has 
> not been established that the Policy applies to the domain name at issue and 
> that, consequently, it has not been established that the Panel is competent 
> to consider the case. The Panel therefore has no choice but to dismiss the 
> Complaint."
> 
> Since CentralNic does not seem to have revised its terms and conditions, the 
> above considerations would still seem to apply. Even though future panels 
> would not be bound by the above considerations, they are likely to follow 
> them as a precendent in similar cases.  
> 
> I suggest that you contact CentralNic (http://www.centralnic.com/), itself 
> regarding the application of any dispute resolution mechanism referred nto in 
>  their 'Terms and Condistions".
> 
> Kind Regards, 
> Samantha 
> 
> 
> Samantha Frida
> Domain Name Attorney
> 
> Philips Intellectual Property & Standards
> <<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>