Dear Senator,When talking about new gtlds, ICANN warned
everybody from
PREregistering domain names. In fact, registries, who took
preregistrations
were even disqualified.
Now, PREregistrations for multilingual domain names (including
new
fonts like cyrillic ones) seem to be no problem at all.
It shall be very
hard for ICANN to explain to Congress or to the Senate
the difference between
the introduction of millions of new domain names
in existing toplevel domains
to the introduction of new toplevel domains
as such.
In both cases even the
trademark problems are the same.
Why didn't/doesn't ICANN introduce new gtlds exactly
the same
way as they now introduce additional multilingual domain names?
Example:
Image Online Design (www.webtld.com) has been doing
with .web for 5 years pretty
much what ICANN is now doing with
the multilingual domain names: They created
a testbed.
Nevertheless this testbed was disqualified by ICANN. How can ICANN
on
one hand not appreciate IODs work, but on the other hand adopt
a similar procedure
themselves?
(Please read IODs application, which can be found under http://www.icann.org/tlds/web1/index2.htm
and their
request for reconsideration, which can be found under: http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/iodesign-request-15dec00.htm)
Who
is offering these preregistrations for "multilingual" domain names?
Is it possible
that economic interests are involved and IOD and
other pioneers simply didn't
meet those interests?
Obviously the stability of the Internet has never and will
never be
in danger, because only new domain names and not the existing ones
are
concerned.
ICANN may therefore stop their false warnings that "the stability of
the
internet was/is in danger" - these warnings make no sense.
If ICANN itself is unconscious
of its own contradictions, then it
definitely needs help to gather control of
its own actions again and
clean its desks from intrest-bound decisions, as quickly
as possible.
Now ICANN plans to reorganise the existing registrations within
the
existing gtld .org. ... even though there is absolutely no need to
take such action.
ICANN doesn't hesitate to consider the deletion of
hundreds of thousands of domain
name registrations "not fitting into .org".
It can be expected that THIS reorganisation
WILL threaten the stability
of the internet.
In 1994, RFC1591 described the
domains which fall under .org:
ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous
TLD for
organizations that didn't fit anywhere else.
Some non-
government organizations may fit here.
It
does not say anything about restricting it to non-profits,
restrictions like those
which were *supposed* to apply to .net, and
mostly apply to .gov and .edu.
It
is inappropriate to take .org domains away now, changing the rules,
for domain
owners who have abided by the rules as laid out in the RFC.
Furthermore ICANN may
allow the question why they didn't intervene, when
Network Solutions (now VeriSign)
started their marketing of .net and .org
domain names as versions of .com, advising
everybody who registered a .com
address to also register the equivalent .net and
.org address "for safety reasons".
Now, after over 2.7 millions of .org addresses
have successfully been sold by
Verisign, it is somewhat strange to take them away
from their owners to resell
them again to "Non-Profit-Organisations", even though
ICANN has failed to even
create an internationally accepted standard of what exactly
an NPO is.
Such a standard could be used for a new gtld ".npo".
I would like
to know from ICANN, what effect the planned
changes of existing domain name registrations
in .org may have on
the stability of the internet.
Obviously ICANN doesn't think
the stability of the Internet to be in danger,
even if they change (or better:
delete) hundreds of thousands of already
registered domain names.
Allow me the
question again:
Why should the stability of the internet be in danger, when new
gtlds are
introduced, if the deletion of hundreds of thousands of existing domain
names
means no problem?
Why doesn't ICANN simply introduce another new gtld dot npo ".npo"
for
Non-Profit Organizations?
How big ist the influence Verisign has on ICANNs decisions?
Another
serious problem is the continuation of VeriSign's monopoly
of the .com registry,
and the removal of the requirement for
separate ownership of the registry and
registrar businesses.
Network Solutions, now owned by VeriSign, has (allegedly)
abused its authority in the past. The proposed agreement
between ICANN and
VeriSign allows them to continue doing so.
http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-com-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm
Earlier
mistakes committed by ICANN: Trademarks
ICANNs way of dealing a non-existing trademark
problem already rose the
question, if they really knew or wanted to know what
they were doing.
In fact ICANN directly and indirectly created a totally new trademark
law,
which significantly differs from the original intention of
trademark protection.
Earlier
mistakes committed by ICANN: Introduction of new gtlds
Together with their reluctancy
of introducing new gtlds and their obvious
favouring of certain companies, the
question may in fact be raised, if it
isn't high time to stop ICANNs current action
and replace those directors
of the board, whose conflicts of interest may in fact
drive the internet
into a major crisis.
There is no technical or theoretical
reason whatsoever not to introduce
a larger group of new gtlds, except the fact
that Verisign would loose its
monopoly and .com domain names their speculative
values. But obviously
ICANN is no longer prepared to fulfill its original mission.
To
underline this statement I would like to submit some brief
informations on trademark
law (cited):
Trademarks, briefly
US Code, Title 15, Chapter 22 is the federal
statute that defines Trademark law. Trademarks are distinctive symbols, words or
pictures that companies use to identify the origin of their products. A registered
trademark normally covers only a reasonably specific class of goods, so a person
in a non-competing business isn't necessarily prevented from using the same word
(especially if it is a common word) as a trademark. For example, although Apple Computers
has a trademark on Apple, a footwear company would probably be able to safely trademark
Apple Shoes.
Besides the necessity of its owner continuing to use it, a trademark
often has to be defended in court. If it loses its distinctiveness and becomes generic,
it is dedicated to the public. Aspirin, Elevator and Zipper were once protected trademarks.
Similar to copyright, trademark has 'fair use' provisions, where using another's
mark is deemed to be 'fair' -- including for uses as parody when it appears in a
traditional medium of protected non-commercial speech.
Unlike patents and copyrights,
the principle purpose behind the trademark law was -- until recently -- to protect
consumers from confusion. Trademarks were not primarily designed to reward the intellectual
property owner with an exclusive right to exploit their creations. They were designed
to protect you from accidentally buying a computer made by Incredibly Boorish Manufacturers
on the basis of an IBM sticker on the case. This distinction -- that trademarks are
supposed to protect consumers -- is important when considering cybersquatting a.k.a.
cyberpiracy and new laws that cover it.
Furthermore I wonder how ICANN can tolerate
Verisigns selling expired domain names
in the so called aftermarked (www.afternic.com).
ICANN
doesn't seem to be prepared to fulfill its original mission anymore.
Thank you
for your attention and help!
Respectfully,