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: 2174296" data-attributes="member: 357"><p>As I've long warned, in ICANN's rush to bring forth new gTLDs (which mostly profit ICANN insiders, registries, registrars, and wannabes), it has no hesitation in trampling the rights of domain name registrants in existing gTLDs like dot-com. This is demonstrated by an ICANN working group which is considering some profound policy changes surrounding "reserved names" that could put short and valuable domain names under extreme risk. See the report at:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm</a></p><p></p><p>which I encourage all to read closely. My own comments were submitted the day the report was issued, and can be seen via the public comments archive at:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/</a></p><p></p><p>There are some truly extremist views being represented in that working group, which are currently not a majority or "consensus" view, but it's extremely troubling that these views are even being considered. For instance, from the mailing list archives of the working group:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00786.html" target="_blank">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00786.html</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>(emphasis added) That's truly shocking, to be openly discussing what's essentially theft of elite domain names that are widely held by legitimate registrants and are non-abusive.</p><p></p><p>The sense of entitlement by these IGOs is truly scary. It's even bolder than TM holders, amazingly. These IGO types think they deserve a monopoly on these names, regardless of whether they're being abused, and despite having nearly 30 years to acquire them. If they made the same proposals for other valuable assets, e.g. land, houses, commodities, etc., to "further their social mission", they'd be laughed at. At ICANN, though, you just never know what they might do, especially given that overpaid and unaccountable staff desperately want to appease governments in order to rush forward with new gTLDs.</p><p></p><p>ICANN, registries and registrars make the same amount of money in fees, as long as the domain name is registered, so they ultimately don't give a damn who has ownership of a particular domain name (of course, registrants do care about their property rights). That's 50% of the "votes" in theory, at the GNSO, via contracted parties (registrars and registries). Add in the NCUC (which has obvious ties to the IGOs), and the IP constituency, and who knows what deal might take place, at the expense of existing registrants, so that ICANN "insiders" can profit from new gTLDs. This all takes place without any economic analysis, weighing costs and benefits, that the Affirmation of Commitments requires, as per paragraph 4 of the document at:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm</a></p><p></p><p>I hope you will all consider submitting comments (after talking to your advisers and researching the issue more), and indeed encourage others to submit comments, to protect your property rights as registrants. Registries and registries certainly aren't incentivized to watch our for your interests. As I noted in my own submission, "first they come for the short domains, then they'll come for *your* domains..."</p><p></p><p>This is not just an issue for "domainers", but for anyone with a desirable domain name (indeed, lots of individuals and companies own short or desirable domains that might randomly collide with acronyms of IGOs), that could see their assets taken if some of the voices in the working group become a majority. If views of existing registrants aren't made vocally, then the extremist minority that wants to take domains from existing registrants might become the "majority", at least in the working group, thereby setting policies that affect everyone.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GeorgeK, post: 2174296, member: 357"] As I've long warned, in ICANN's rush to bring forth new gTLDs (which mostly profit ICANN insiders, registries, registrars, and wannabes), it has no hesitation in trampling the rights of domain name registrants in existing gTLDs like dot-com. This is demonstrated by an ICANN working group which is considering some profound policy changes surrounding "reserved names" that could put short and valuable domain names under extreme risk. See the report at: [url]http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm[/url] which I encourage all to read closely. My own comments were submitted the day the report was issued, and can be seen via the public comments archive at: [url]http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/[/url] There are some truly extremist views being represented in that working group, which are currently not a majority or "consensus" view, but it's extremely troubling that these views are even being considered. For instance, from the mailing list archives of the working group: [url]http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00786.html[/url] (emphasis added) That's truly shocking, to be openly discussing what's essentially theft of elite domain names that are widely held by legitimate registrants and are non-abusive. The sense of entitlement by these IGOs is truly scary. It's even bolder than TM holders, amazingly. These IGO types think they deserve a monopoly on these names, regardless of whether they're being abused, and despite having nearly 30 years to acquire them. If they made the same proposals for other valuable assets, e.g. land, houses, commodities, etc., to "further their social mission", they'd be laughed at. At ICANN, though, you just never know what they might do, especially given that overpaid and unaccountable staff desperately want to appease governments in order to rush forward with new gTLDs. ICANN, registries and registrars make the same amount of money in fees, as long as the domain name is registered, so they ultimately don't give a damn who has ownership of a particular domain name (of course, registrants do care about their property rights). That's 50% of the "votes" in theory, at the GNSO, via contracted parties (registrars and registries). Add in the NCUC (which has obvious ties to the IGOs), and the IP constituency, and who knows what deal might take place, at the expense of existing registrants, so that ICANN "insiders" can profit from new gTLDs. This all takes place without any economic analysis, weighing costs and benefits, that the Affirmation of Commitments requires, as per paragraph 4 of the document at: [url]http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm[/url] I hope you will all consider submitting comments (after talking to your advisers and researching the issue more), and indeed encourage others to submit comments, to protect your property rights as registrants. Registries and registries certainly aren't incentivized to watch our for your interests. As I noted in my own submission, "first they come for the short domains, then they'll come for *your* domains..." This is not just an issue for "domainers", but for anyone with a desirable domain name (indeed, lots of individuals and companies own short or desirable domains that might randomly collide with acronyms of IGOs), that could see their assets taken if some of the voices in the working group become a majority. If views of existing registrants aren't made vocally, then the extremist minority that wants to take domains from existing registrants might become the "majority", at least in the working group, thereby setting policies that affect everyone. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names
Top
Bottom