Re: [ICANN-EU] UDRP

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roberto,
Your opinion has obviously the weight of experience.
However reading in detail the documents issued by the
ICANN at large (who is in charge is quite opaque) do
you consider that you have been heard?

As an applicant I was under the impression that the
ICANN could only act with the approval of 2/3 of the
DNSO Members. Also that DN related issues - obviousy
including such a thing as new public TLDs quite against
RFC 1591 - were to be reviewed by the DNSO.
This had made us to trust the procedure. We feel now
this is not to case, and we have no more confidence...

Another thing is everyone, including you, seem to
forget that the request of the ICANN is not for new
TLDs as such, but for inovation too. Inovation is a
word underlined by the ICANN I found nowhere while
it should be IMHO the core of the discussion. Can or
can we not obtain it in or without modfying the DNS
and BIND.

In both our approaches (".sys" and ".wiz") most of
the issues debated (registries, registrars, rates, areas
of interest, UDRP, trade-marks, cybersquatting, etc...)
become meaningless or have other meanings.

But this is part of what actually is the global internet :-) !!
Best regards.
Jefsey

At 20:28 25/08/00, you wrote:
>Vittorio,
>
>>
>>On the other hand, I'm sure that there must be some space (= TLDs) where
>>individuals and organizations can stay sure that no big business will come
>>and claim trademark issues to take their domain away ;-)
>
>
>The only reason for the introduction of new TLDs is, to me, to provide 
>diversification of the offer, in terms of econmical models 
>(for-profit/non-for-profit Registry, for instance), in terms of tecnical 
>solutions ("Thick Registry" vs. "Thin Registry", for instance), in terms 
>of geographical distribution of the Registries, and also in terms of 
>policies for trademark protection and dispute resolution.
>This was the line I followed in my comments to ICANN when the matter was 
>in public enquiry. Full details on my Website - url not provided to avoid 
>being accused of campaigning ;>).
>
>If new TLDs are introduced without keeping this in mind, the operation 
>will have an almost zero added value for the users (unless you believe 
>that adding new TLDs will allow to better locate resources on the net, but 
>this has been already debated).
>
>To the point of UDRP, if no TLD with a clear policy "trademarks not 
>protected here" will be delegated, we would have lost a chance.
>
>And credibility too.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com