Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: fabrcop
Date/Time: Thu, November 2, 2000 at 1:17 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 95
Score: 5
Subject: CONTRADICTIONS in IPC's comment about IOD/.web application!

Message:
 

 
CONTRADICTIONS in IPC's comment about IOD/.web application!

While I appreciate IPC's hard work to comment on so many applications,
I find CONTRADICTIONS in comments about IOD/.web application,
that is evaluated "unsatisfactory" in 3 points out of 5 (!)
of criterion #8: "Appropriate protections of rights of others
in connection with the operation of the TLD"
(this is one of eight ICANN's criteria, paragraph 8,
see links at the bottom of this post).

I read in IPC's evaluation chart:

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

My answer:

1) The application must satisfy the criteria established by ICANN
(August 15 document), while Names Council's press release is
SOMETHING DIFFERENT: it is NOT the CRITERIA established by ICANN!!!
It is a SUBJECTIVE OPINION by DNSO, that MUST NOT influence ICANN's
decision (OTHERWISE there would be a strong conflict of interest
regarding Mr. Ken Stubbs of DNSO, who is involved in Afilias
application and other ones).
So, this IPC's comment is OFF-TOPIC!

2) The so-called "PRE-REGISTRATIONS" were taken since 1996 after
an authorization by IANA. This is LONG BEFORE the Names Council's
press release and long before creation of ICANN itself!!!
So I can't figure out how IOD could satisfy a suggestion made
4 years later (please notice that it is a SUGGESTION by DNSO
and it is NOT a CRITERION by ICANN).
IOD started its .web registry (taking real registrations) in 1996
because IANA planned that IOD's .web registry would go online soon.
This was delayed, however IOD continued to take registrations
in good faith. Such special situation of IOD should be considered
a MERIT rather than a fault! It is natural that IOD wishes to
respect these contracts (registrations taken since 1996).

Then I read in IPC's evaluation chart:

>Moreover, the application specifically rejects a "sunrise" type
>proposal. Trademark owners have preemptive rights to challenge
>existing .web applications, however, unlike a "sunrise" provision
>where trademark owners are the first to file, there is a phase
>in period during which trademark holders can place
>existing .web registrations (i.e., presumably those that
>have also been pre-registered) on hold... [snip]

And so what? This satisfies ICANN's criterion and avoids a long
waste of time, the so-called Sunrise period, that is NOT compulsory.
ICANN wants that the TM problem is solved: this is not necessarily
made with a long and boring Sunrise period.
Please notice that abused domains will not be "placed on hold":
I understand that they will be re-assigned by IOD itself, so no
"court of competent jurisdiction" is needed, I guess. And if this
is really needed, it is also in the case of the Sunrise period
(abuses may happen in this case also!).

Finally, please notice that IOD's registrations solves the
problem of the day-one rush to "premium domains", such as
"usa.web" or "marketing.web" or "business.web".
Instead of giving them to random rushers on day one,
they are assigned to people who registered them in good faith
since 1996 (disclaimer: I am NOT one of them).

Again, this is another MERIT that is considered a fault!

Links:

IPC evaluation chart:
http://ipc.songbrd.com/Proposed_TLDs_chart_nov_00_1st_try.htm

ICANN's criteria (Aug.15):
http://www.icann.org/tlds/tld-criteria-15aug00.htm
(paragraph 8)

Regards

Fabrizio Coppola
Italy


 

Link: IPC evaluation chart


Message Thread: