The last time we took it to court, we dismissed it before those claims came up. The
judge believed the IAHC line that they controlled the Internet, and if they weren't
allowed to proceed, the Internet would come to a halt. Had the case continued, that
misinformation would have been corrected. But that's a "might have been." We dismissed
the case due to the USG involvement. Now that we've made it public, the record shows
that the USG involvement came in no small part because of our case and our urgings.As
for the recent ruling, I couldn't be happier. What it said is that NOBODY can hold
trademark rights in top-level domains. Isn't that what you wanted? (Yes, I know who
you are, and I'm sure you realize this). Now NOBODY can come forward and claim that
they get a TLD because they "own" it. Indeed, even .IBM and .ATT aren't protected
at this point. Imagine that!
So it boils down to first use, if you care to make
a legal argument.
Hopefully it's moot, and ICANN will judge applicants on the merits
of what they've done, the experience they can demonstrate, and objective technical
criteria.
Isn't that also what you wanted?
Christopher Ambler
Image Online
Design, Inc.