RPM Group <> Re: DomainNameWire ~ CentralNic to nuke a handful of pseudo-domain names
Hi Gentlemen & RPM Group: Cc Garth: Further to the conversation in the RPM Meeting of May 4th, thank you Phil for the engaging in / expanding the dialog on *CentralNic*; and their ability to be exempt from ICANN’s RAA Rules. I’d like to thank George Kirikos for his statement to Phil: *“I think Graham is talking about 3rd level dot-com domains (not ccTLDs). i.e. Landcruise .uk.com <http://landcruise.uk.com/>, vs. Landcruise.com”.* Yes George, I am indeed curious how: *“That "special rule" by CentralNic is not something blessed by or authorized by ICANN.” *became such an accepted racket by ICANN; and why ICANN’s Contractual Compliance never shut-them-down? Thanks also to Greg, our ICANN IPC President for this link from: *“ADR Forum's website: CentralNic is a second level domain registrant that sells third-level domains to users. * *Registration of a third level domain name in one of CentralNic’s second level domains requires agreement to CentralNic’s Dispute Resolution Policy. Prior to filing a CDRP, the complainant is required to attempt mediation by contacting CentralNic.* *The CDRP process is almost identical to the UDRP. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel <http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel>”* To all RPM Members: Why must a .COM Domain Name Registrant mediate with their Contributory Infringer, another RAA Subject, Domain Name Registrant? Ask yourselves reflectively, these questions of ~ *Third-Level Domain Names: at the ADR Forum. *http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel *[ WHY ? ] *Ordinarily, domain name dispute resolution policies do not apply to third-level domain names. A few second-level domain name registrants have decided to *[ e~VaED the ACPA ]* sell third-level domain names like a Registry* [ and allowed to place those accounts into / under the VeriSign, ICANN & NTIA’s Root Zone of .COM in the DNS! ] * and have established dispute resolution policies to deal with any resulting disputes. *[ which equates to Racketeering ! ]* WHOIS History shows: CentralNic’s uk.COM is a former; and long standing Domain Name Registrant of Network Solutions, under the ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” status .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, subject to the RAA. This was prior to their Cyber-Flight to CentralNic’s own TLD Registrar Solutions, domiciled at CentralNic’s London address, and yet again prior before their Third [3rd] Cyber-flight to Demys, yet again, another ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, where all are subjects to the RAA. Many of these observations or questions have been identified by another ICANN'er, Garth Bruen [Cc'd] in his book: *“**WHOIS Running the Internet: Protocol, Policy, and Privacy”* where reads will see that Garth eloquently dissects the problem. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mgmeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=centralnic+schreibe... Greg and Phil, let me be candid with you both. Now that You’re being *FUNDED BY* revenues in large measure by ICANN’s .COM Domain Name Registrants to go Globe-trotting, I vigorously encourage you to stop being the batmen [ soldier-servants] to CentralNic’s *“handful of pseudo-domain names”* [Quote from Domain Name Wire] and serve the needs of the .COM Registrant’s. Also, Philip Corwin, thanks for acknowledging Greg:* “Thanks for that link, Greg”* . Greg & Phil, I expect you both to take you’re ~ funded ~ leadership role’s seriously; and press ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic. Further, I expect you both to deploy you’re given powers within ICANN; and to successfully petition the United States Justice Department to ask ICANN Et Al to answer the “Questions Presented” in SCOTUS 14-1480, as linked. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdfFTOI... Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward. To the Members of this RPM Group, who are aware of this scam, it’s time to stop harbouring this racketeering scheme; and oblige ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic; and also to recognize beyond ICANN, that the cc.COMs are "*misleading"* and are a violation of established International Intellectual Property Treaties like WTO’s TRIPS. In closing, thanks again George for you’re help! Given you’re article Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract...> Jan 10, 2013 12:06 AM PDT, I’d appreciate having you share more of you’re knowledge & questions with the Group. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract... Thanks all, for reading this and engaging ICANN Et Al, to ensure that .COM Registrants ~ Rights Protections ~ are protected. Regards, Graham Schreiber.
Graham: [apologies for the long email, but I think by dealing with this now, we'll all save ourselves lots of time later] With respect, I don't think your specific grievance is well-suited to this working group, which is intended for general policy-making. If you have a concern/observation, it really needs to be framed in such a way as impacting that general policy. I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, but here's what I observe (correct me if I'm wrong): 1. The UDRP and other dispute resolution procedures/policies created by ICANN complement, but do not replace, the courts. If someone has a dispute, they are free to take their case to the courts, instead of using the UDRP. 2. The UDRP wasn't designed to handle all possible domain name disputes. It's a streamlined procedure intended to apply to a subset, the "clear cut" circumstances, under a very narrowly defined set of criteria (i.e. the 3-pronged test). 3. Your specific (and rather complex) dispute appears to center around your registration of the LandCruise.com domain name (and the associated business). You have "LandCruise" trademarks registered in Canada and the USA. according to a TMView search: https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome (by the way, the Landcruise.ca domain name is unregistered -- might be worth grabbing that one for yourself; if you've read this far, it's been worth your time!) Trademark registrations are of course only applicable to specific geographic regions. There is no "global trademark registration", and many identical marks coexist in multiple regions, owned by different owners/users. 4. Someone else in the UK owns UK and British trademark registrations for LandCruise (as per TMView above). They also own the LandCruise.co.uk ccTLD domain name, and are also using the 3rd-level subdomain (licensed from CentralNic, itself a UK company) LandCruise.uk.com. 5. From the US lawsuit you filed against ICANN (among others), which has been dismissed: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schreiber-v-dunabin-2012-09-11-en it appears you ultimately want the use of that LandCruise.uk.com subdomain to be terminated (among other things, but I think that's the essence, at least from a domain name perspective). 6. If you filed a UDRP against the UK.com domain name itself, you'd likely not meet the criteria for the "3-pronged" test, because "UK" is not confusingly similar to "LandCruise". Furthermore, "bad faith registration" wouldn't be demonstrable, given they had a good faith reason to register the UK.com domain name. [whether the subdomain is a bad faith *use* or not is irrelevant, if they pass the good faith registration part of the test] 7. You normally can't file a UDRP against the subdomain LandCruise.uk.com, as that's not something contemplated by the UDRP. Furthermore, even if you did, the existence of those UK and European trademarks would likely be sufficient to successfully defend such a dispute, since the other side would be able to demonstrate they do have "rights" or "legitimate interests" in the term. 8. While CentralNic has its own dispute resolution policy for 3rd level domains, it's only binding on its own licensees, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ICANN or this working group. Even then, it's a UK company that has a UK trademark licensing the 3rd level domain name from a 2nd-level domain name owner who is in the UK. It would be quite difficult to overcome these facts, in my opinion. 9. Ultimately, in my opinion, the "other side" in your dispute is perfectly shielded by their European and UK trademarks, to the extent that their use of the term is in commerce in the UK and Europe. Unless those trademarks are successfully challenged and overturned in a court of law, you're just out of luck. Even a powerful company like Google had no success overturning a valid German trademark for "GMail", and ultimately appeared to purchase the trademark: http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/14/google-finally-gets-right-to-gmail-trademar... You'll note even Apple lost a TM case in China over the term "iPhone" recently: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36200481 (although that case is under appeal) 10. While you might be disappointed or disheartened by #9, your only true recourse is with the UK and European courts. This working group isn't the proper venue for determining the validity of those trademarks. 11. As per point #3 above, you can certainly go to the US or Canadian courts if the "other side" is using those marks in commerce in the US or Canada, i.e. outside the geographic areas that their own trademarks apply in. It appears you've attempted to do that in the US courts (see point #5 above), at least, without success. This working group, or a UDRP panel, isn't going to disturb a valid court ruling. UDRP is also no replacement for the courts (courts are certainly the more "senior" venue). 12. This might be difficult to hear, but if you've exhausted the court system, you must accept that outcome, and adapt accordingly. If you believe you're "locked out" of the UK or European markets because you can't use the term "LandCruise" there, it might be prudent to create a 2nd website using a different domain name for those regions, using a mark that you can trademark there. Google did that with their "Googlemail", for example, as the alternative to "Gmail" in Germany. If you can't accept that legal outcome and move on, you'll ultimately expend a lot of time, money and energy trying to undo something that can't be undone. 13. Just to cover some of your specifics, CentralNic (acting as a registrant) is free to create any "policy" it wants for dispute resolution of its 3rd-level domains, but they're certainly not binding on anyone (except perhaps their own licensees of 3rd level domains). I could write on my own website that "If you have a dispute over the use of Math.com, you must send us 314 apple pies, and deliver them on Pi Day (March 14th), for it to be considered." That would have the same binding effect on a complainant as the CentralNic policy (i.e. it would have no binding effect whatsoever). As to the RAA, it doesn't apply when CentralNic is licensing 3rd-level subdomains of its own 2nd-level domains. Furthermore, this working group's scope doesn't include the RAA. 14. As for the statement "Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward.", it's really not for us to enforce the ACPA or the laws of any particular country. That's the role of the courts. If you obtain a valid court order against those entities, and it's not followed, then you can go back to the courts to have them found in contempt of court, seek damages, etc. If you can't obtain such a court order, see point #12 above. 15. In light of the above, I think you should take some time to carefully consider what you hope to achieve through this working group. If your participation is intended to "relitigate" an existing or past dispute, it's really not the right venue. If instead you wish to bring to light scenarios in which the UDRP can be improved for a *large* number of "clear cut" disputes (not just your specific and complex dispute), where those scenarios are widely recognized in the legal systems of the world (since the UDRP isn't meant to create new law), then that kind of participation might be helpful to the group. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Graham Schreiber <grahamschreiber@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gentlemen & RPM Group: Cc Garth:
Further to the conversation in the RPM Meeting of May 4th, thank you Phil for the engaging in / expanding the dialog on CentralNic; and their ability to be exempt from ICANN’s RAA Rules.
I’d like to thank George Kirikos for his statement to Phil:
“I think Graham is talking about 3rd level dot-com domains (not ccTLDs). i.e. Landcruise .uk.com, vs. Landcruise.com”.
Yes George, I am indeed curious how: “That "special rule" by CentralNic is not something blessed by or authorized by ICANN.” became such an accepted racket by ICANN; and why ICANN’s Contractual Compliance never shut-them-down?
Thanks also to Greg, our ICANN IPC President for this link from:
“ADR Forum's website: CentralNic is a second level domain registrant that sells third-level domains to users.
Registration of a third level domain name in one of CentralNic’s second level domains requires agreement to CentralNic’s Dispute Resolution Policy. Prior to filing a CDRP, the complainant is required to attempt mediation by contacting CentralNic.
The CDRP process is almost identical to the UDRP. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel”
To all RPM Members: Why must a .COM Domain Name Registrant mediate with their Contributory Infringer, another RAA Subject, Domain Name Registrant? Ask yourselves reflectively, these questions of ~ Third-Level Domain Names: at the ADR Forum. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel
[ WHY ? ] Ordinarily, domain name dispute resolution policies do not apply to third-level domain names.
A few second-level domain name registrants have decided to [ e~VaED the ACPA ] sell third-level domain names like a Registry [ and allowed to place those accounts into / under the VeriSign, ICANN & NTIA’s Root Zone of .COM in the DNS! ] and have established dispute resolution policies to deal with any resulting disputes. [ which equates to Racketeering ! ]
WHOIS History shows: CentralNic’s uk.COM is a former; and long standing Domain Name Registrant of Network Solutions, under the ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” status .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, subject to the RAA.
This was prior to their Cyber-Flight to CentralNic’s own TLD Registrar Solutions, domiciled at CentralNic’s London address, and yet again prior before their Third [3rd] Cyber-flight to Demys, yet again, another ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, where all are subjects to the RAA.
Many of these observations or questions have been identified by another ICANN'er, Garth Bruen [Cc'd] in his book: “WHOIS Running the Internet: Protocol, Policy, and Privacy” where reads will see that Garth eloquently dissects the problem. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mgmeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=centralnic+schreibe...
Greg and Phil, let me be candid with you both. Now that You’re being FUNDED BY revenues in large measure by ICANN’s .COM Domain Name Registrants to go Globe-trotting, I vigorously encourage you to stop being the batmen [soldier-servants] to CentralNic’s “handful of pseudo-domain names” [Quote from Domain Name Wire] and serve the needs of the .COM Registrant’s. Also, Philip Corwin, thanks for acknowledging Greg: “Thanks for that link, Greg” .
Greg & Phil, I expect you both to take you’re ~ funded ~ leadership role’s seriously; and press ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic.
Further, I expect you both to deploy you’re given powers within ICANN; and to successfully petition the United States Justice Department to ask ICANN Et Al to answer the “Questions Presented” in SCOTUS 14-1480, as linked. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdfFTOI...
Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward.
To the Members of this RPM Group, who are aware of this scam, it’s time to stop harbouring this racketeering scheme; and oblige ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic; and also to recognize beyond ICANN, that the cc.COMs are "misleading" and are a violation of established International Intellectual Property Treaties like WTO’s TRIPS.
In closing, thanks again George for you’re help! Given you’re article Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees Jan 10, 2013 12:06 AM PDT, I’d appreciate having you share more of you’re knowledge & questions with the Group. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract...
Thanks all, for reading this and engaging ICANN Et Al, to ensure that .COM Registrants ~ Rights Protections ~ are protected.
Regards,
Graham Schreiber.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Oops, I made a typo. In #4, I meant to say: "Someone else in the UK owns UK and *EUROPEAN** trademark registrations..." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 12:52 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Graham:
[apologies for the long email, but I think by dealing with this now, we'll all save ourselves lots of time later]
With respect, I don't think your specific grievance is well-suited to this working group, which is intended for general policy-making. If you have a concern/observation, it really needs to be framed in such a way as impacting that general policy.
I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice, but here's what I observe (correct me if I'm wrong):
1. The UDRP and other dispute resolution procedures/policies created by ICANN complement, but do not replace, the courts. If someone has a dispute, they are free to take their case to the courts, instead of using the UDRP.
2. The UDRP wasn't designed to handle all possible domain name disputes. It's a streamlined procedure intended to apply to a subset, the "clear cut" circumstances, under a very narrowly defined set of criteria (i.e. the 3-pronged test).
3. Your specific (and rather complex) dispute appears to center around your registration of the LandCruise.com domain name (and the associated business). You have "LandCruise" trademarks registered in Canada and the USA. according to a TMView search:
https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome
(by the way, the Landcruise.ca domain name is unregistered -- might be worth grabbing that one for yourself; if you've read this far, it's been worth your time!)
Trademark registrations are of course only applicable to specific geographic regions. There is no "global trademark registration", and many identical marks coexist in multiple regions, owned by different owners/users.
4. Someone else in the UK owns UK and British trademark registrations for LandCruise (as per TMView above). They also own the LandCruise.co.uk ccTLD domain name, and are also using the 3rd-level subdomain (licensed from CentralNic, itself a UK company) LandCruise.uk.com.
5. From the US lawsuit you filed against ICANN (among others), which has been dismissed:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schreiber-v-dunabin-2012-09-11-en
it appears you ultimately want the use of that LandCruise.uk.com subdomain to be terminated (among other things, but I think that's the essence, at least from a domain name perspective).
6. If you filed a UDRP against the UK.com domain name itself, you'd likely not meet the criteria for the "3-pronged" test, because "UK" is not confusingly similar to "LandCruise". Furthermore, "bad faith registration" wouldn't be demonstrable, given they had a good faith reason to register the UK.com domain name. [whether the subdomain is a bad faith *use* or not is irrelevant, if they pass the good faith registration part of the test]
7. You normally can't file a UDRP against the subdomain LandCruise.uk.com, as that's not something contemplated by the UDRP. Furthermore, even if you did, the existence of those UK and European trademarks would likely be sufficient to successfully defend such a dispute, since the other side would be able to demonstrate they do have "rights" or "legitimate interests" in the term.
8. While CentralNic has its own dispute resolution policy for 3rd level domains, it's only binding on its own licensees, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ICANN or this working group. Even then, it's a UK company that has a UK trademark licensing the 3rd level domain name from a 2nd-level domain name owner who is in the UK. It would be quite difficult to overcome these facts, in my opinion.
9. Ultimately, in my opinion, the "other side" in your dispute is perfectly shielded by their European and UK trademarks, to the extent that their use of the term is in commerce in the UK and Europe. Unless those trademarks are successfully challenged and overturned in a court of law, you're just out of luck. Even a powerful company like Google had no success overturning a valid German trademark for "GMail", and ultimately appeared to purchase the trademark:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/14/google-finally-gets-right-to-gmail-trademar...
You'll note even Apple lost a TM case in China over the term "iPhone" recently:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36200481
(although that case is under appeal)
10. While you might be disappointed or disheartened by #9, your only true recourse is with the UK and European courts. This working group isn't the proper venue for determining the validity of those trademarks.
11. As per point #3 above, you can certainly go to the US or Canadian courts if the "other side" is using those marks in commerce in the US or Canada, i.e. outside the geographic areas that their own trademarks apply in. It appears you've attempted to do that in the US courts (see point #5 above), at least, without success. This working group, or a UDRP panel, isn't going to disturb a valid court ruling. UDRP is also no replacement for the courts (courts are certainly the more "senior" venue).
12. This might be difficult to hear, but if you've exhausted the court system, you must accept that outcome, and adapt accordingly. If you believe you're "locked out" of the UK or European markets because you can't use the term "LandCruise" there, it might be prudent to create a 2nd website using a different domain name for those regions, using a mark that you can trademark there. Google did that with their "Googlemail", for example, as the alternative to "Gmail" in Germany. If you can't accept that legal outcome and move on, you'll ultimately expend a lot of time, money and energy trying to undo something that can't be undone.
13. Just to cover some of your specifics, CentralNic (acting as a registrant) is free to create any "policy" it wants for dispute resolution of its 3rd-level domains, but they're certainly not binding on anyone (except perhaps their own licensees of 3rd level domains). I could write on my own website that "If you have a dispute over the use of Math.com, you must send us 314 apple pies, and deliver them on Pi Day (March 14th), for it to be considered." That would have the same binding effect on a complainant as the CentralNic policy (i.e. it would have no binding effect whatsoever). As to the RAA, it doesn't apply when CentralNic is licensing 3rd-level subdomains of its own 2nd-level domains. Furthermore, this working group's scope doesn't include the RAA.
14. As for the statement "Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward.", it's really not for us to enforce the ACPA or the laws of any particular country. That's the role of the courts. If you obtain a valid court order against those entities, and it's not followed, then you can go back to the courts to have them found in contempt of court, seek damages, etc. If you can't obtain such a court order, see point #12 above.
15. In light of the above, I think you should take some time to carefully consider what you hope to achieve through this working group. If your participation is intended to "relitigate" an existing or past dispute, it's really not the right venue. If instead you wish to bring to light scenarios in which the UDRP can be improved for a *large* number of "clear cut" disputes (not just your specific and complex dispute), where those scenarios are widely recognized in the legal systems of the world (since the UDRP isn't meant to create new law), then that kind of participation might be helpful to the group.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Graham Schreiber <grahamschreiber@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Gentlemen & RPM Group: Cc Garth:
Further to the conversation in the RPM Meeting of May 4th, thank you Phil for the engaging in / expanding the dialog on CentralNic; and their ability to be exempt from ICANN’s RAA Rules.
I’d like to thank George Kirikos for his statement to Phil:
“I think Graham is talking about 3rd level dot-com domains (not ccTLDs). i.e. Landcruise .uk.com, vs. Landcruise.com”.
Yes George, I am indeed curious how: “That "special rule" by CentralNic is not something blessed by or authorized by ICANN.” became such an accepted racket by ICANN; and why ICANN’s Contractual Compliance never shut-them-down?
Thanks also to Greg, our ICANN IPC President for this link from:
“ADR Forum's website: CentralNic is a second level domain registrant that sells third-level domains to users.
Registration of a third level domain name in one of CentralNic’s second level domains requires agreement to CentralNic’s Dispute Resolution Policy. Prior to filing a CDRP, the complainant is required to attempt mediation by contacting CentralNic.
The CDRP process is almost identical to the UDRP. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel”
To all RPM Members: Why must a .COM Domain Name Registrant mediate with their Contributory Infringer, another RAA Subject, Domain Name Registrant? Ask yourselves reflectively, these questions of ~ Third-Level Domain Names: at the ADR Forum. http://www.adrforum.com/ThirdLevel
[ WHY ? ] Ordinarily, domain name dispute resolution policies do not apply to third-level domain names.
A few second-level domain name registrants have decided to [ e~VaED the ACPA ] sell third-level domain names like a Registry [ and allowed to place those accounts into / under the VeriSign, ICANN & NTIA’s Root Zone of .COM in the DNS! ] and have established dispute resolution policies to deal with any resulting disputes. [ which equates to Racketeering ! ]
WHOIS History shows: CentralNic’s uk.COM is a former; and long standing Domain Name Registrant of Network Solutions, under the ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” status .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, subject to the RAA.
This was prior to their Cyber-Flight to CentralNic’s own TLD Registrar Solutions, domiciled at CentralNic’s London address, and yet again prior before their Third [3rd] Cyber-flight to Demys, yet again, another ICANN & VeriSign “accredited” .COM R[r]egistry / R[r]egistrar, where all are subjects to the RAA.
Many of these observations or questions have been identified by another ICANN'er, Garth Bruen [Cc'd] in his book: “WHOIS Running the Internet: Protocol, Policy, and Privacy” where reads will see that Garth eloquently dissects the problem. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mgmeCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&dq=centralnic+schreibe...
Greg and Phil, let me be candid with you both. Now that You’re being FUNDED BY revenues in large measure by ICANN’s .COM Domain Name Registrants to go Globe-trotting, I vigorously encourage you to stop being the batmen [soldier-servants] to CentralNic’s “handful of pseudo-domain names” [Quote from Domain Name Wire] and serve the needs of the .COM Registrant’s. Also, Philip Corwin, thanks for acknowledging Greg: “Thanks for that link, Greg” .
Greg & Phil, I expect you both to take you’re ~ funded ~ leadership role’s seriously; and press ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic.
Further, I expect you both to deploy you’re given powers within ICANN; and to successfully petition the United States Justice Department to ask ICANN Et Al to answer the “Questions Presented” in SCOTUS 14-1480, as linked. https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-cwg-naming-transition-01dec14/pdfFTOI...
Should you opt not to help enforce the ACPA law, I will consider that as Collaboration with CentralNic, going forward.
To the Members of this RPM Group, who are aware of this scam, it’s time to stop harbouring this racketeering scheme; and oblige ICANN to enforce the RAA on CentralNic; and also to recognize beyond ICANN, that the cc.COMs are "misleading" and are a violation of established International Intellectual Property Treaties like WTO’s TRIPS.
In closing, thanks again George for you’re help! Given you’re article Loopholes and Ambiguities in Contracts that ICANN Oversees Jan 10, 2013 12:06 AM PDT, I’d appreciate having you share more of you’re knowledge & questions with the Group. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130109_loopholes_and_ambiguities_in_contract...
Thanks all, for reading this and engaging ICANN Et Al, to ensure that .COM Registrants ~ Rights Protections ~ are protected.
Regards,
Graham Schreiber.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello All & George: Cc Eric at Jones Day & Nick obo Nominet: George, thanks for your detailed email sent, in connection with CentralNic. Given this group is gathered to co-ordinate for ICANN, for the "*Rights Protection Mechanisms*" going forward for Domain Name Registrants; and Intellectual Property Holders / Owners alike, members here should be cognizant of the fact that CentralNic are Con-Artists. CentralNic are masters of the "*confusingly similar*" who've been able to "*pass off"* ".COM" Domain Names as an *ICANN Accredited ccTLD*s, thanks to the " *Blurring*" words they used; and having VeriSign / Network Solutions, eNOM / Demand Media & 123Reg / Webfusion; and others, un related to my direct harm, peddle what WTO's TRIPS define as MISLEADING GI's in the form of FAKE cc.COMs as having great authority. CentralNic beyond those firms, have been aided by ICANN's $crounging $takeholders as Individuals *{{ who here, will remain unnamed }} * collectively letting CentralNic's scam "*fall between the cracks" of ccTLD and GTLD registries and outside the normal jurisdiction of ICAN**N*". Here for the education of the newer members ~ *excluding the co-operatively negligent, old timers *~ is where CentralNic arose, as quoted in Steven Dyer's well crafted & cultivated quote to ICANN, where they pitch their bid to run ".ORG", as linked & shown below. The salient word CentralNic's Steven Dyer calculatingly inserts is "suggested" followed "by the late Jon Postel". Beyond this, "suggestion" we're told of, there are no documents inside ICANN to show CentralNic's domain names are anything but Domain Names, subject to the RAA and the UDRP; and prior to ICANN, the United States Laws Law governing Domain Names, Marks, Trade Names & Trademarks at Common Law level, plus of course those "Registered" at the USPTO, like mine. *ATTENTION: Eric, at Jones Day*. Please have Louis Touton, the original VP, Secretary & General Council "inside" ICANN, who while on "Volunteer" ??? *assignment* ??? from Jones Day the "Outside" Council of service to ICANN via Jones Day, confirm that CentralNic never were granted NEW gTLD Status during ICANN's meeting in Japan; and You Eric, can confirm on behalf of ICANN that uk.COM still isn't. Because as You know, if it it were, it'd be listed in the IANA Root Directory, with the genuine "new g ltd's". Eric; and Jones Day, you *can* help here with my request, *as I'm formally participating within ICANN's GNSO-RPM Group.* Or conversely, when ICANN Et Al are in due course sued in Toronto, Canada, to investigate ICANN's integrity as a "Contractor" to the Canadian Government, in the TPP at Section 18, Article 18:28 Domain Names ... and my problem too, Mr. Touton will be questioned ~ as an ICANN'er. The lawsuit will likely question ICANN's other Staff & some ".COM" Funded, Globe-Trotting "Volunteers" too, along with Past Staff, again uniquely Mr. Touton. Eric, this letter linked > *https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-US-CA-Letter-Exchange-on... <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-US-CA-Letter-Exchange-on-IP-Border-Enforcement.pdf>* < will confirm that ICANN are subjects of the Court for Questioning, as ICANN must prove themselves honourable enough to be Contracted by the Canadian Government to manage Domain Names. Naturally, if ICANN are so incompetent that they can't / couldn't / won't contemplate CentralNic's conduct after Contributory Infringement, as being Common Law #TM Domain Name Dilution & Blurring into a UDRP, to follow & uphold the RAA Rule, 3.7.7.9, that expressly prohibits Infringement, I can tell you, ICANN will be deleted from the TPP. Members of this group are encouraged to self-study the problem, to locate and identify ANY document which validates CentralNic as being exempt from the RAA. Or as our bespoke ICANN, IPC .COM funded globe-trotter Brian Winterfeldt intimated to Gerald Bruce Lee, when at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for BOTH CentralNic & Network Solutions, prove that uk.COM ~ the .COM Domain Name ~ is: Extraterritorial to the Lanham Act ~ through ICANN Accreditation and being listing in the IANA Root. George, back to some of you're other points. They're well studied and thank you for taking the time to put all the information together! *For the record:* The UK Trademark was requested by Ms Dunabin, using with the .COM ~ Domain Name uk.COM at the Second Level, coupled with Landcruise, at, or into the Third Level. The IPO have been apprised of the case; and it's history. They know the uk.COM is a Domain Name; and they also know that CentralNic deploy it as they do. The IPO being well informed, also know of the WTO TRIPS Rules and recognize uk.COM as a "Misleading Geographic Indication". As such they await, as they must a Court Document confirming everything, as thats the protocol. As for Nominet and Nick Phillips Cc'd, both confirmed, in conversation, that I could't get the .co.uk Domain Name; because somebody was 'squatting" on it ~ expecting me to pay their ransom. Nick will be sending me a confirmation with WHOIS Details, showing Times & Dates of the "squatter" that had the Domain Name, prior to Dunabin, for presentation to the Canadian Court. In closing, this group needs to address CentralNic, or this circumstance will be yet another example of collusion, willful-blindness and contempt by / from ICANN'ers, towards the very people [ Domain Name Registrants ] their meant to Serve! Sorry, that's not going sit well with R[r]egistry & R[r]egistrar types, but helping Me, keeps "You" in the NEW gTLD Game, as R[r]egistries & R[r]egistrars having Criminal Convictions can't participate with ICANN, much less can ICANN participate in being ICANN. Cheers, Graham. *II. Statement of capabilities of the applicant and contracted service providers* *https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/organic/ii.html <https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/applications/organic/ii.html>* *C13.2* General description of CentralNic's business and other activities: CentralNic is a leading, independent global domain name registry which is committed to making it easier for Internet users to establish new and distinctive domain names with regional and country-specific identities. Headquartered in London, CentralNic currently has a portfolio of more than 17 domain names available to users world-wide, including *eu.com <http://eu.com>* (Europe), *uk.com <http://uk.com>* (United Kingdom), *us.com <http://us.com>* (United States), *cn.com <http://cn.com>* (China) and *ru.com <http://ru.com>* (Russia). The total registry size exceeds 1.5 million names. CentralNic's operations, together with its predecessor company, NomiNation, date back to 1996. CentralNic has a full-time staff of twenty-seven based at CentralNic's headquarters in London, United Kingdom, a North American Sales and Marketing Manager based in the US, and a European Business Developer based in Germany. CentralNic is a privately held limited company, 70% owned by its founders who are all actively involved in the management of CentralNic - with the remaining 30% held by passive investors. Steve Dyer is regarded under English Law as being a controlling party with respect to CentralNic. To serve its customers without interruption, CentralNic operates an expanding global network of Domain Name Servers running on the latest versions of Solaris and Linux to ensure maximum reliability and performance. The servers are co-ordinated and controlled from the company's network operations centre in London. CentralNic offers an efficient and speedy registration service in a number of countries around the world and further countries are being added to its portfolio. Its world-wide network of over 1,000 resellers provides efficient local access for registration and assistance for registrants. *vi. CentralNic corporate profile* Originally founded in 1996 as *NomiNation*, CentralNic was re-launched in April 2000 as an independent global domain name registry committed to making it easier for Internet users to establish new and distinctive domain names with regional and country-specific identities. Headquartered in London, CentralNic currently has a portfolio of more than 17 domain names available to users world-wide, including *eu.com <http://eu.com>*(Europe), *uk.com <http://uk.com>*(United Kingdom), *us.com <http://us.com>*, (United States), *cn.com <http://cn.com>* (China) and *ru.com <http://ru.com> *(Russia). The total registry size exceeds 1.5 million names. CentralNic uses the *.com* and *.net* standard domain name structure to offer additional regional and country-specific domain names, ensuring a secure, inexpensive solution for creating easily identifiable Internet addresses world-wide. CentralNic is proud that this innovative use of the domain name system was suggested by the late Jon Postel and recognises his contribution. CentralNic's registry service is particularly useful for Internet users in countries where domain names are difficult to obtain due to restrictive domain regulations. However, the CentralNic portfolio also has wide appeal to individuals and companies seeking to define an Internet identity in a region or country where they intend to establish or expand their business, or for any other reason establish a geographically distinct identity. Users often turn to CentralNic when a conventional Top Level Domain (TLD) such as *.com*, or a country TLD such as *.uk* address has already been claimed by another party. CentralNic customers include such well-known companies as *Admiral Insurance*, *Electronics Boutique*, *Price Jamieson* and *Gucci*. *vii. CentralNic past business operations/entity history* In the early days of the UK Internet, NomiNation, the first private Internet Registry Company, was launched to handle the domain name *uk.com <http://uk.com>*. The idea came about as a direct result of conversations between the late Jon Postel ("Father of the Internet") and Stephen Dyer (Chairman of NomiNation) in 1995. Jon suggested the use of *uk.com <http://uk.com>* to compete with *co.uk <http://co.uk>* at a time when the proposed price of the *co.uk <http://co.uk>* name was 200 (about $300 US). Subsequently, with the launch of the *uk.com <http://uk.com>* domain name, *co.uk <http://co.uk>* was offered at 80 and Nominet UK, the *co.uk <http://co.uk> *registry, did not hold a monopoly position. The two domain names continue to function in harmony, and the addition of *uk.net <http://uk.net>*, *gb.net <http://gb.net>* and *gb.com <http://gb.com>* provides the UK Internet community with the widest choice of local domain names.
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Graham Schreiber