Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	Paul Gill
Date/Time:	Sun, August 5, 2001 at 7:55 AM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Subject:	No, You Have It All Wrong
Message:
This is  not the fault of Afilias. In order to get .info, they had to appease the trademark lobby which has strong influence in ICANN. They had to play ICANN's game by ICANN's rules. If you can't comprehend this then you are too naive to even be posting here. This sunrise provision, though not perfect, was therefore part of the agreement. Your making the assumption that since most of the names you checked appear to be fake, then most of the submissions must be. This is flawed logic because, you checked the top 100 or so most valuable generic names. If you had checked other less valuable generics also like I had you will find either 1) they are still available (not all trademark holders throughout the world are aware of this sunrise provision, let alone .info) or 2) the trademark info appears to be in order. You have to see it from the domain speculators point of view: get the most valuable name for the registration  fee there paying. These names that may be taken fraudently like movies.info, news.info can easily be challenged. If I were the owner of say news.com (CNET is I believe), I would challenge news.info.

Message Thread:

• Pure Nonsense — kellyjones, August 4, 2001 @ 2:58 PM (1/12)
• Do you mean me? — Garry Anderson, August 4, 2001 @ 5:42 PM (2/11)
• Well — kellyjones, August 5, 2001 @ 7:16 AM (1/3)
• Yes you are right - it is fraudulent — Garry Anderson, August 6, 2001 @ 12:06 AM (1/2)
• Wrong again! — kellyjones, August 6, 2001 @ 9:25 AM (1/1)
• Please read in context — Garry Anderson, August 6, 2001 @ 10:58 AM (0/0)
• There is a remedy in place — Paul Gill, August 4, 2001 @ 11:41 PM (1/6)
• Wrong! — kellyjones, August 5, 2001 @ 6:52 AM (1/5)
• No, You Have It All Wrong — Paul Gill, August 5, 2001 @ 7:55 AM (2/4)
• No — kellyjones, August 6, 2001 @ 9:31 AM (1/2)
• Whats That? — Paul Gill, August 6, 2001 @ 1:06 PM (1/1)
• I checked 119 - most of them seemed bogus! — onmove, August 6, 2001 @ 5:28 PM (0/0)
• Let's not sidetrack the main issue........... — onmove, August 5, 2001 @ 9:26 AM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy