Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GeorgeK" data-source="post: 2194403" data-attributes="member: 357"><p>Hi folks,</p><p></p><p>ICANN continues to threaten short/acronym domain names.</p><p></p><p>ICANN released a preliminary report yesterday on whether to create a PDP (policy development process) on reforming the UDRP/URS in order to give IGOs and INGOs special rights in relation to bringing claims. See:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm</a></p><p></p><p>My own comments submitted this morning are at:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00000.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00000.html</a></p><p></p><p>I hope you will take a moment to submit your own thoughtful comments, and encourage others to do the same (by April 14th for the initial comment period, and then again by May 6th for the "reply" period). As we've seen before, IGOs/INGOs organized to flood the earlier comment periods with boilerplate "support" letters. We can do much better, and submit independently derived comments.</p><p></p><p>I would think that most domain name registrants would be strongly opposed to any PDP being initiated, or any changes being made that would reduce the existing due process protections, and that would grant IGOs and INGOs "special treatment."</p><p></p><p>I think the other side's argument boils down to IGOs/INGOs wanting "immunity" from the court system (but read the entire report for yourselves). And I think ultimately they want to compel *mandatory* international arbitration, instead of being subject to the jurisdiction of any national courts. So, let's suppose you lose a UDRP for AA.com --- if you're an American, you'd be unable to challenge that decision in a US court, but would instead be compelled to challenge it via another mandatory arbitration! (in some international kangaroo court, probably made up of the same folks running the UDRP).</p><p></p><p>In my own comments, I make the case that IGOs/INGOs already have recourse under existing law, and that ICANN should not be in the business of creating new laws. I gave the specific example of a person creating a restaurant in Toronto or New York with a sign of "WIPO" or "UNESCO" --- what would happen? Whatever happens in that situation should be the exact same procedure for domain names, and ICANN should not create any special rules.</p><p></p><p>I also pointed out that IGOs/INGOs already waive their so-called immunity, when they register their *own* domain names in .com/net/org. For example, un.org and wipo.org are registered via Network Solutions, and NSI specifically states that these registrants (the United Nations and WIPO respectively, for these example) agree to *Florida* jurisdiction for their own registrations! It's somewhat absurd and hypocritical that these folks waive their so-called "immunity" when they are registering their domain names, but only want to assert their immunity when someone wishes to challenge an adverse UDRP, URS, etc. (i.e. if an IGO won a UDRP or URS, they want that to be the end of the story, without an appeal to a national court; they'd be happy to agree to another international kangaroo court/tribunal, though).</p><p></p><p>Also, registries/registrars do have specific jurisdictions, and courts can certainly make orders in relation to those entities to order them to transfer control of a domain name. Whether the IGOs/INGOs care to participate or not doesn't change the fact that the courts give no "immunity" to VeriSign or NSI or Tucows or other registrars/registries. IGOs/INGOs seem to only want to participate in places where the rules are skewed in their favour, and not on a level playing field.</p><p></p><p>In conclusion, national courts are much more likely to protect domain name registrants and ICANN should not be rewriting rules to create special rights for IGOs/INGOs that would compel registrants to give up their rights to use the court system. I hope you'll take a moment in the next few weeks to submit your own comments. (<strong>NB: Be sure to look for the automated validation email that ICANN sends you back as an anti-spam measure when submitting a comment, and click the link to validate your comment, otherwise it will not be entered into the archives.</strong>)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GeorgeK, post: 2194403, member: 357"] Hi folks, ICANN continues to threaten short/acronym domain names. ICANN released a preliminary report yesterday on whether to create a PDP (policy development process) on reforming the UDRP/URS in order to give IGOs and INGOs special rights in relation to bringing claims. See: [url]http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm[/url] My own comments submitted this morning are at: [url]http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00000.html[/url] I hope you will take a moment to submit your own thoughtful comments, and encourage others to do the same (by April 14th for the initial comment period, and then again by May 6th for the "reply" period). As we've seen before, IGOs/INGOs organized to flood the earlier comment periods with boilerplate "support" letters. We can do much better, and submit independently derived comments. I would think that most domain name registrants would be strongly opposed to any PDP being initiated, or any changes being made that would reduce the existing due process protections, and that would grant IGOs and INGOs "special treatment." I think the other side's argument boils down to IGOs/INGOs wanting "immunity" from the court system (but read the entire report for yourselves). And I think ultimately they want to compel *mandatory* international arbitration, instead of being subject to the jurisdiction of any national courts. So, let's suppose you lose a UDRP for AA.com --- if you're an American, you'd be unable to challenge that decision in a US court, but would instead be compelled to challenge it via another mandatory arbitration! (in some international kangaroo court, probably made up of the same folks running the UDRP). In my own comments, I make the case that IGOs/INGOs already have recourse under existing law, and that ICANN should not be in the business of creating new laws. I gave the specific example of a person creating a restaurant in Toronto or New York with a sign of "WIPO" or "UNESCO" --- what would happen? Whatever happens in that situation should be the exact same procedure for domain names, and ICANN should not create any special rules. I also pointed out that IGOs/INGOs already waive their so-called immunity, when they register their *own* domain names in .com/net/org. For example, un.org and wipo.org are registered via Network Solutions, and NSI specifically states that these registrants (the United Nations and WIPO respectively, for these example) agree to *Florida* jurisdiction for their own registrations! It's somewhat absurd and hypocritical that these folks waive their so-called "immunity" when they are registering their domain names, but only want to assert their immunity when someone wishes to challenge an adverse UDRP, URS, etc. (i.e. if an IGO won a UDRP or URS, they want that to be the end of the story, without an appeal to a national court; they'd be happy to agree to another international kangaroo court/tribunal, though). Also, registries/registrars do have specific jurisdictions, and courts can certainly make orders in relation to those entities to order them to transfer control of a domain name. Whether the IGOs/INGOs care to participate or not doesn't change the fact that the courts give no "immunity" to VeriSign or NSI or Tucows or other registrars/registries. IGOs/INGOs seem to only want to participate in places where the rules are skewed in their favour, and not on a level playing field. In conclusion, national courts are much more likely to protect domain name registrants and ICANN should not be rewriting rules to create special rights for IGOs/INGOs that would compel registrants to give up their rights to use the court system. I hope you'll take a moment in the next few weeks to submit your own comments. ([b]NB: Be sure to look for the automated validation email that ICANN sends you back as an anti-spam measure when submitting a comment, and click the link to validate your comment, otherwise it will not be entered into the archives.[/b]) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names
Top
Bottom