[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [cctld-discuss] ICANN updates

[todd glassey]

----- Original Message -----
From: "t byfield" <tbyfield at panix.com>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [cctld-discuss] ICANN updates


> dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Tue 07/30/02 at 03:20 PM -0700):
>
> > On the other hand, it is interesting to see that all the court
authorized
> > were pretty much the same terms as ICANN had been specifying.
>
> good to see that you're 'staying on message,' dave:
>
>      <http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-29jul02.htm>

IMHO the Judge overlooked a couple of showstoppers here

The first is that Califiornia has rules about what NPO's have to say to
their members, and since it is a service organization, it is easily arguable
that by registering a domain you become a member of ICANN and that as a
member have rights to various pieces of the organizations record process.

Remember also that there is no competition to ICANN, and that it has no
right to prohibit members  from requesting access to and gaining access to
its tax records as an NPO Guild either. Since there is no competition, there
is no possible damage that revealing the the corporate accounts could do to
the members of ICANN becuase there are no possible competeitors to ICANN at
this juncture.

The other issues include ICANN's numerous violations of the State of
California's laws and regulations including its ones about upholding
trademarques and the like. For instance is a custom license plate
identifiable and protectable as a private marque? I dont think so... and now
ask yourself what is the difference between a license plate and a domain
name. I say there is nothing. So this totally blows the UDRP out of the
water. Further anyone that has lost a domain name under the UDRP should IHMO
immediately sue ICANN and its Director's individually over this.

Just my two cents...

Todd Glassey,.

>
>      ICANN [...] notes that the practical effect of the overall
>      ruling is quite similar to the ICANN procedure that Mr.
>      Auerbach rejected last October.
>      <...>
>      The ultimate effect of the Court order is essentially the
>      same as the ICANN procedure that Mr. Auerbach refused to
>      follow.
>
> just like you were with your bumpf about 'consuming resourses':
>
>      It is unfortunate that ICANN's limited resources must be
>      used for matters such as this [...]

Wasnt the point of this to identify ICANN's "limited resources" and to make
a detimination how limited they are.

>
> cheers,
> t
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss