| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
.nu Swept Away?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 14 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Anonymous troll.
It deserves no reply, but I'll say this quickly.
When a corporation is dissolved, either through liquidation proceedings in a bankruptcy court or otherwise, any registered trademarks it had with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will eventually be marked as "abandoned" or "expired". Such is the case of Communities.com when it became insolvent and filed for Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in March 2001. Several months after its dissolution, its formerly registered trademarks for "Communities.com" and "The Palace" were marked as abandoned.
The same holds true for ccTLDs. And as I've stated repeatedly, in the interests of stability, it would be best to continue that ccTLD's operation for several years, perhaps even five years if you feel it is necessary, but under IANA management since the former administrator will no longer have a mandate to run it.
And to ensure IANA does not profit from the venture, any monies collected from registrations that were in processing at the time of dissolution of the country could go into a special fund -- to be divided evenly amongst registered 501(c)3 non-profit organizations dedicated to enhancing the Internet, such as the Internet Society or the like. Further, after all remaining registrations have been processed, IANA would then set a date for which it would be removed from the root. (Say, four years.) All registrations would be synced up to expire at that date, and anyone who had paid beyond that date, would receive a refund or the option to donate their refund cheque to the fund. IANA would also not permit new registrations at that time.
Cheers,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
If ISO causes a conflict by recycling an old abbreviation, then shame on the ISO.
Like it not, they're the ISO's abbreviations. ISO policies concerning the abbreviations have to represent what's in the best interests of the ISO and its members, not third parties (like IANA, Niue, and domain registrants) who happen to borrow the standard.
Asserting that the ISO has done something wrong by not letting outside interests hijack its precedures is ridiculous. Respectable standards bodies can't function like that.
Where is it written that a ccTLD must be tied to a piece of land for it to be valid?
It's strongly implied by the term "ccTLD", but if you're truly so daft as to need a references, try RFC 1591 [ietf.org] and On IANA's web site [iana.org].
I doubt any amount of whinging will make the ISO or IANA budge on this one. IANA is going to keep the ccTLD list tied to ISO 3166-1 because its easy (for IANA) and gives all the countries, territories, and odd little islands of the world an equal opportunity for a predictably-named domain.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
