Short domains don't belong to IGOs/INGOs, especially ones already registered

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Submission Date: December 18, 2013
By: George Kirikos
Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Web: http://www.leap.com/

During this reply period, I would like to expressly oppose the submissions by 
the UN and their related agencies that have been flooding the public comment 
forum with self-serving positions that are out of step with reality.

I reiterate the comments that my company submitted during earlier comment 
periods on this very topic, in particular at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00000.html

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00015.html

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00017.html


In particular, these entities seeking superior rights compared to others 
provide no statistical or economic data on the extent of their alleged 
"problem" which would require any extraordinary protection. Indeed, those like 
myself who oppose their position have provided the real data on the problem 
(see the 3rd link above), in particular a mere 15 UDRPs for the Red Cross, and 
26 for the IOC, in total since the inception of the UDRP nearly 15 years ago. 
The claimed problem is tiny, as the data demonstrates, in comparison to 
cybersquatting in the commercial realm (and cybersquatting in the commercial 
realm is a relatively small problem, in relation to the 200 million+ domain 
names in existence).

By claiming that the sky is falling, these IGO and INGO extremists ultimately 
seek to reverse hijack and expropriate existing domain names from their 
rightful owners, rather than to pay market rates for valuable acronym domain 
names that have multiple competing and legitimate commercial uses. ICANN should 
ignore their self-serving and unrealistic claims. The sky is not falling.

I also agree with the positions of the Internet Commerce Association, as stated 
at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13/msg00027.html


as well as the positions of others in prior comment periods such as Alexander 
Lerman:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00002.html


and Nat Cohen:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/msg00005.html


among others who oppose special protection for IGOs and INGOs.

Many of these IGOs and INGOs participated directly in the underlying Working 
Group, and have had more than ample opportunity to "have their say." They've 
tried to assert their unrealistic and self-serving positions to a far 
disproportionate level than the general public or the tens of millions of 
innocent domain name registrants who would be affected by their zany proposals 
that have no basis in law and are ultimately *communist* in nature (against 
property rights of domain name registrants). 

If these same agencies put forth positions that they demanded free land or 
office space or food or entertainment, to be forcibly taken from existing 
owners of that land, office space, food or entertainment without compensation, 
because of their "special needs", the public would take umbrage at, and mock,  
that greedy sense of entitlement. Their sense of entitlement over short, 
desirable, and valuable domain names that have multiple competing commercial 
uses, especially ones that have already been allocated to others via the 
marketplace since the 1990s, should provoke the same reaction amongst informed 
and enlightened observers.

In conclusion, no extraordinary rights should be granted to IGOs and INGOs over 
short and desirable domain names with multiple competing commercial uses. There 
should be respect for the fundamental property rights and due process rights of 
existing domain name registrants. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/