Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: friedrich
Date/Time: Sun, March 4, 2001 at 10:24 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows NT 5.0
Score: 5
Subject: Please join this letter and/or forward it to your representative.


        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 ( 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 and their
request for reconsideration, which can be found under:

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.

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 (

ICANN doesn't seem to be prepared to fulfill its original mission anymore.
Thank you for your attention and help!




Link: How to find out who is your representative

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy