Hello Bob and the World of CORE, POC and PAB;
I am astounded at this posting of yours, Bob, and a bit sad to see the
CORE getting involved in ccTLD matters so soon in the game.
I think all the trademark attorneys and others who received your email
should take the time to read RFC 1591, at
http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1591.txt
which as far as I know is the only current policy-setting "standard" on
how to run a TLD registry. RFC 1591 is the RFC under which *all* ccTLDs
are currently operating, and it refers in neutral terms to the treatment
of trademarks thusly:
--------------
4. Rights to Names
1) Names and Trademarks
In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
information to both parties.
The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
anyone else's Trademark.
---------------
A growing number of ccTLDS are moving to assure that ICANN includes the
provisions of RFC 1591, which was drafted by Jon Postel in 1994 after a
decade of experience managing the DNS, into the ICANN bylaws, at least
as it relates to management of the ISO 3166 TLDs.
It is our expectation that RFC 1591 will continue to allow even the
smallest ccTLDs to manage their own affairs while not being forced to
get involved in the complex and costly world of trademark "domain name
dispute" wars you mention below.
As we move to create the DNSO in the Nov. 15th meeting in Monterrey, and
in the interest of maintaining stability and continuity on the Internet,
it is important for all the participants to understand that there is a
large and active community of domain name registries - the ccTLDs -
running going concerns, many with 10 to 15 years of experience doing so,
under an established Internet standard, RFC 1591, which must not be
pushed aside in the rush to create a new, untested, system.
It is for this reason, I believe, that close to 50 ccTLDs have already
come out in support of the enshrinement of RFC 1591, our "Constitution"
as written by Jon Postel, into the ICANN bylaws.
In support of RFC 1591,
Bill Semich (NIC JWS7)
bsemich@mail.nu
.NU Domain
Memberships: ISOC, ISP/C, APIA, IATLD, APTLD, Internet Users Society -
Niue
------------------------------
Comments above are on email from "Robert F. Connelly" as published on
the PAB public web site at:
http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00393.html
------------------------------
In reply to 02 Nov message from "Robert F. Connelly"
<rconnell@psi-japan.com>:
>Bob Sharp and CORE Colleagues:
>Bob Sharp has referred to me a FAX he received from "NIC, The
>Source for .CC Domain Names". It warns him that, though his
>client "Simul America, Inc." holds "simul.com", someone else could
>take "simul.cc".
>It advises him as follows: "For a limited time only, sumul.cc has
>been reserved and pre-activated for your immediate use...". The
>mailing includes a convenient invoice which Bob can return to NIC
>(together with US$100) to "prove up on" simul.cc:-{
>I wasn't sure which ISO-3166 country is "CC", so I went to ITU's
>site at the following URL:
> http://www.itu.int/net/cctlds/
>Here it is:
> Cocos (Keeling) Islands - CC (CCK)
> Cocos (Keeling) Islands/Cocos (Keeling) (Iles)/Cocos (Keeling)
>(Islas) - updated 12-Oct-98
> Island Internet Services, Telecom House 6799, Cocos
>Islands
> Administrative Contact: Thomas Anderson
> Island Internet Services, Telecom House, Cocos Keeling
>Islands 6799
> email: tanderson@nic.cc
> phone: +61 2 947 50013
> fax: +61 2 947 50014
> Technical Contact: Brian Cartmell
> 1916 Pike Pl, #12-357, Seattle, WA 98101-1056, United
>States
> email: brc@nic.cc
> phone: +1 206 329 7900
> fax: +1 206 329 7107
> whois: http://rs.internic.net/cgi-bin/whois?cc24-dom
>end quote:
>I see that the Cocos Islands are about 7 degrees West of Christmas
>Island on about the same latitude, a bit below the equator. It is
>tied to Australia and has country code 61 for international
>telephone calls.
>Bob asks whether it is a scam. If it were received by Email, I'd
>call it a Spam. I think it is a practice which should be
>discouraged. Since Leni is attending the WIPO Conference this
>Wednesday, I am sending him a copy of Bob's FAX in .tiff format.
>
>The problem of ISO-3166 ccTLDs becoming de facto gTLDs has been
>raised as a *major* concern at all three of the WIPO Consultations
>I attended. I think CORE should emphasise that there is little
>ICANN CAN do about this practice. However, *CORE*
>will_operate_under_ICANN_rules and, as such, will be tied to the
>WIPO ACPs or such other "alternate domain name dispute resolution"
>system that ICANN designates.
>Regards,
>BobC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:37 PST