<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
comment on the proposed .net registry renewal and URS
- To: net-agreement-renewal@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: comment on the proposed .net registry renewal and URS
- From: <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:42:49 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>HI,</div><div><br></div><div>I am writing to let you know
that I do not approve of the current proposal of changes with regards to the
URS</div><div><br></div><div><span><span style="clear: both;"><span><i>URS
details are in flux. While untested, the URS clearly provides registrants with
fewer rights than the UDRP. <br>- There is no foundation in any ICANN policy
process for imposing new gTLD "rights protections" on incumbent gTLDs without
careful study and deliberation -- after seeing how they work, or don't, at new
gTLDs. <br>- This is a big deal: .NET is the third-largest TLD after .COM and
.DE, with nearly 14 million registrations. <br>- It's fundamentally unfair to
impose URS on .NET registrants. Individuals who wish to acquire future domains
under new gTLDs would be notified in advance that they will be subject to URS.
However, .NET domains have already been acquired, often at considerable
expense, with the understanding that registration and use would only be
subject to possible UDRP review. <br>- If trademark interest groups can get
the URS imposed on .NET now, and .COM next year through its contract renewal,
then they are likely to scuttle the ICANN-planned UDRP reform process (the
only real prospect for balanced and comprehensive UDRP reform). <br><br>The
value and security of your .NET assets are at stake. And, once again, if URS
is imposed on .NET this year, the same will likely happen to .COM in 2012. So
please take five minutes to send a comment to ICANN now to let them know what
you think of this idea.
<br></i></span></span></span><br></div></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|