Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Gregory W. Krajewski
Date/Time: Wed, November 1, 2000 at 5:26 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Open Note to the IPC.......The truth about your report

Message:
 

 
       
      Please read my thoughts on this process (sunrise/icann,etc), which you will find below at the bottom of the page (link).

Clearly you wish for a Sunrise Proposal....which in my comments (see link below), show how and why ICANN or any registry should not get involved in (furthermore there was no consensus on that issue!!)..Also you make reference to the "five ICANN critiria" you use to critique the applications(See below--your comments)---First are those ICANN's criteria (not DNSO), and if so where are they posted and where was the consensus for them which let to a vote on them??  Also do these criteria, have anything to do with the technical management of the internet (again, read by comments (link) below)...You may have spent some time on evaluating these applications, which I think is good...but to come up with a "review that speaks to one issue" was a waste of time (in my humble opinion)

(your comments)
>>>We have given each of the proposals a preliminary rating on the five ICANN criteria on a scale ranging from "Good" to "Satisfactory" to "Unsatisfactory" to "Insufficient Information" and have provided a brief commentary to explain our ratings.<<<


Lastly, it is understandable that you would like to get the best deal for your constinuency...however you must clearly understand that it is what is in the best interest of the internet that matter here...History has shown that when one special interest group tries to impose it's rules on the rest, that it has backfired...Why doesn't the IPC want ICANN to succeed???  (for once it crosses a line, congress will jump in)

In the past the courts and congress have protected TM owners...what is ICANN (and registries) supposed to do that will clearly put them in a situation where they are not supposed to be...I leave that up to you to decide...

My stance on all this is we need to come to an agreement and work together...Trying to impose grades on a registry is not going to do it (especially when a few of the grades were high to applicants your affiliated with in the DNSO and ICANN--since you brought them into it)...The funny thing is IOD is trying to play fair, and has adopted UDRP (which you guys FULLY support)...They have also come up with a "volunteer withdrawl" by a registrant if they have infringed...Which I think gives them an A+ in that (right now) is acceptable to BOTH the TM lobby and the internet community...This innovative approach, brings everyone to the table, and everyone gets something...and it is done fairly, which will cut down on ICANN's legal bills, since UDRP is currently recognized (Unlike the Sunrise proposal) and volunteering to give a your domain is legal...

Personally I get the feeling that if you had control of the DNS you guys would be happy to run it...unfortunately the TM law and basic sovereignty is on our side...So if you wish to do good for your constinuency I would say to you that you should roll up your sleeves and work together with us (for you the TM lobby and US, the internet community)


Oh and by the way...Your comments about IOD and it's "pre-registrations" are without merit and shows that your interest does not lye with TM protection, but the aspect of the fact some "Generic" dot webs are gone, which your group would like...One business CANNOT own, Business.net, Business.com, Business.web, Business.org, or Car.com, Car.net, Car.web...Those folks with generic words in their domain (whether it be dot com or dot net) understood the risks...trying to change law (which has been establish in the courts, will only do detriment to your cause--we may end up going the other way, which I do not want)....

>>>(A) The application contemplates the validation of its pre-registration of .web domain names, clearly in contradiction to ICANN and the Names Councils press release.<<

IOD predates ICANN and DNSO..sir...so if you would have commented with respect to those issues would have been fine, but instead you chose to use the bad word "pre-registration"...Question:  Do I have the right to decide how to spend my money?? or is the IPC going to regulate that too...Also I am a pioneer myself as well as many other IOD supporters...we stand behind IOD's application and took a risk (legal)..If IOD is not chosen...we may not get into the A root server, but I can bet me may go elsewhere (which none of us want!!)...By the way...the Names Council's press release is a warning to internet users...That should have come directly from ICANN...the DNSO does not have a contract to handle the technical management of the internet..Again, this shows that ICANN is not independent from this group...and needs to be...One last thing and this is glaring, I realize other members of the DNSO may not have weighed in on your report, but they are members of your group (DNSO)...How is it then you can give an independent analyis...Clearly you don't think that we have researched the DNSO, and applicants do you??
 

Link: My comments with regard to the Sunrise Proposal, and TM protection


Message Thread: