[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Older registrations
The problem is that the WIPO people are trying to get registrars to be
enforcement arms for their members. This is the crux of the problem.
In the publishing world, as long as a publication does not have a history of
being a trandemark/copyright referee, they let trademark holders
duke it out with advertisers. If someone places an ad which is a copyright
violation or mis-uses someone else's service or trademark, the courts
don't hold the publication responsible for this, but the person/company
placing the ads. Now WIPO has hijacked the DNS in order to "draft" it
into being their strong arm.
The topic of trademarks has NO business being mixed in the the DNS debates -
trademark disputes are between holders and those they accuse of
violating their trademarks.
This is not to be confused with the rights of someone to own a domain,
including top-level domains. ADNS owns the top level domains USA, EARTH
and Z because were first to use them and first to apply for them (Postel's
list is evidence of this which is admissible in court).
What happened with the simple concept of adding new gTLDs was that it was
hijacked by WIPO and those interested in obtaining power and
prestige by having control over the whole system.
Thats why ADNS got out of the debate and decided to take action on its own
like others. We will defend our intellectual property if someone tries to
steal it, however.
AGN Domain Name Service, Inc.
Get Your Mind and Your Website out of the .COM Rut.
Define Yourself or Be Defined!
Remember: ICANN really means "You Can't"
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Higgs <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Older registrations
> At 11:23 PM 3/20/00 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >Simon Higgs wrote:
> > >I was there. You weren't. You can say whatever you want. I'll stand by
> > >the historical facts:
> > >
> > >In 1995/1996, IANA solicited new iTLD requests under the guidelines
> > >laid out in RFC1591. IANA received many new iTLD applications and
> > >the results on the IAHC-discuss mailing list (archived at
> > >for some inexplicable reason). At the same time, IANA started the
> > >to establish unquestionable authority to formally introduce new TLDs
> > >(beginning with the "Postel drafts" and now under ICANN). The iTLD
> > >applications received by IANA were printed out and placed in a file at
> > >IANA (I've seen the file - it exists) pending the results of that
> > >
> > >And here we are.
> >I was not there, but I would like to comment anyhow on your passages
> >What strikes me is that, at the origin, we had a "simple" problem of
> >enhancing the Domain Name space with the introduction of new gTLDs (or
> >iTLDs, if you prefere).
> >We went through different efforts, committees of any sort, papers of
> >different colours, even the attempt to define a new model for Internet
> >Governance, but, as you well put it "and here we are", years later, with
> > a lot of discussions, and maybe even results, but with the starting
> >question about new gTLDs still unanswered.
> You are absolutely correct in your observation. Unfortunately, to
> accurately answer your question will offend a lot of people as blame will
> be placed where it is due. I'm not sure ICANN is ready for that level of
> public scrutiny or accountability. Let me put my flame-proof suit on
> Best Regards,
> Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds
> discuss people, and Fools argue.
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html