Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Thu, August 30, 2001 at 9:52 PM GMT
||Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
||Best Thing That Could Have Happened!
In reference to "E", there is a 'Challenge' process
in place which, although has its shortcomings, does address this.
Please do not
defend the IPC. They are the ones who lobbied for a Sunrise period. In fact, they
proposed this to ICANN back in June of 2000 as a requirement for any future gTLD's.
There was a public comment period on this ICANN Public Forum board where we are now
posting. An overwhelming consesus developed against this proposal and ICANN rejected
the IPC sunrise requirement for future gTLD's (mainly due to the same reasoning as
that Gary Anderson who often educates us about on this forum). ICANN then left it
up to applicants to address how best to protect trademark holders rights in their
application for new gTLD's in November 2000. The winning bids (Neulevel's .biz and
Afilias's .info both did this in different ways). Afilias chose a Sunrise which they
knew was unfair because they wanted to win a gTLD. This is one of the things ICANN
really liked about the Afilias application. So really, all this is ICANN's fault.
But in the long term, this Sunrise fiasco happening now is a good thing...there will
never be a Sunrise for trademark holders again. We will make sure of this.