I have studied Internet (mis)Management for nearly two years.
I have put the answer
to Internet trademark problems to US and UK Government departments. It has never
been successfully challenged, by anybody. The USPTO and DoC, also UK Patent Office,
could not deny this solution would unique identify all trademarks.
I will happily
bow to those that could disprove me.
My observations and opinions:
You say: "There
have been a number of comments that have suggested the Dot Info and Dot Biz process
have been a conspiracy or a swindle."
Given that the chosen planned route has provided
greatest profit, on the balance of probability, it seems the most likely reason.
do not agree with having Sunrise Period, it is a propaganda solution. A THOUSAND
new open TLD, each with sunrise, will not solve the problems.
priority in open TLD, abridges peoples use of these words.
I am for restricted
trademark TLDs - it is the only logical solution to avoid 'consumer confusion', 'trademark
conflict' problems and to stop anybody 'passing off'.
The only fair process for
Sunrise Period would be:
Open Sunrise. Domain goes to trademark first come, first
served basis. Timestamp other claims, in case first is fraudulant. Released to first,
only upon verfification.
Open Landrush - people now know what domains are available.
Domain goes on first come, first served basis.
You say: "I must admit that some
decisions have raised my eyebrow but I do still believe at this point that most of
the decisions made so far have been in good faith."
Given the past performance
over the years and the closed meetings, it would seem you are wrong.
You say: "Both
of the processes for the new TLD's have been trials. There is no precedent
for what ICANN and Afilias & Nuelevel are attempting to do. In fact, ICANN
has been clear that both procedures are trials and that future TLD offerings will
be based on what is learned."
Please read 410 excellent post:
say: "It is clear that the international credibility of each of these entities is
on trial during this process."
I am convinced - they either could not plan a piss-up
in a brewery or they are corrupt. I go with second option.
You say: "It is in the
best interest of all involved that the process is fair and credible."
thing that seems in their best interest - to make most profit from the situation.
have been 100% successful.