Over the last week, I have talked about the .cm extension on several occasion (here, here, and here) and in the comments to the post it appears there is a lot of confusion in the domainer community as to ICANN’s role in ccTLD’s
The short answer is, they don’t have much.
ICANN territory is Top Level Domains, the 21 existing TLD’s and the new proposed g’TLD’s
Simply put ccTLD’s “are not subject to the rules for TLD’s that the ICANN community develops but in most cases are subject to the regulation of the country or region that they are based”
Here is the official explanation by ICANN:
“””There are over 250 ccTLDs, some of which have a contract with ICANN; others of which have signed working agreements with ICANN; and some of which have yet to enter any formal agreement with ICANN. ICANN however does carry out what is known as the “IANA function” in which every ccTLD’s main address is listed so the rest of the Internet can find it”.
Translation: ICANN makes sure that all the ccTLD’s work, in the root system. Beyond some fundamental rules that pertaining to technical issues, ICANN’s ability to regulate a ccTLD registry is very limited to the agreement they executed with the registry, and in many cases there is no such agreement.
If you want to see an agreement between ICANN and a ccTLD registry you can check out the one for .jp (japan). You will notice dispute resolutions issues are not discuss nor other than technical issues ICANN places no restrictions on the registry.
Simply puy, Local law controls. Not the law of the US and not the rules of ICANN.
The next question that a lot of domainers seem to have, as I saw raised in comments to thedomains.com this week was the effect of UDRP on ccTLD’s
Here the quick answer:
Basically VERY little.
While some ccTLD’s have adopted WIPO rules for setting trademark disputes many have not fully adopted it and many have not adopted it at all.
The .CM registry has NOT adopted WIPO standards in whole or in part, as they are not on the list, so there will NOT be any UDRP for .CM domains.
That is not to say that lawsuits cannot be brought against registrants, registrars or the registry, but UDRP’s and WIPO rules are not recognized by that country, at this point.
Bottom line there are VERY few UDRP cases involving a ccTLD ever brought or decided.
To save you the look, there are only 30 ccTLD’c that have ever had a UDRP decision and most involved .me and .tv.
All of the UDRP decisions, since the start of time, brought on a ccTLD’s, fit on one page.
Now please don’t understand.
I’m not a ccTLD hater.
I’m just clarifying some questions many of you seem to have and want to let you know that the rules are different for ccTLD’s than for the 21 TLD’s in existence and the proposed new gTLD’s.
That’s why i said sometime ago, that’s the reason why i believe domainers will start investing more and more on cctld’s, if the stealing of generic domains continue on gtld’s. If ICANN doesn’t protect domainers from the greed of some corporations and other “smart” guys.
I’m all in favour of the protection of trademarks, i’m all against cybersquatters, but i can’t accept the fact that some companies are taking advantage of that to take generic domains from their owners.
Let’s hope that good sense wins
Quote –
“Is .cm registry accountable to Icann?
I would think the whois and dns obstacles would violate Icann rules.”
Mike,
Thanks for answering my question from the other thread.
That explains why Kevin initially went that route with .cm .
You should put up a vote:
Do you think it is a good thing that ccTLD’s have no UDRP (in general) or a bad thing.
Everybody hates on ICANN for UDRP, and URS, but then there are these extensions where that doesn’t apply. Of course I want the middle ground. Plain and simple a fair, just, and consistant UDRP
ICANN isn’t likely to gain any love from the CountryCodeTLD’s any time soon… while they have bamboozled a few to “sign on”, there are plenty of others that are simply disgusted with what ICANN has turned out to be.
Great article.
JP
My vote is that no UDRP is a good thing.
No ICANN oversight can run both ways.
A foreign government could pass a rule or law that negatively effects a ccTLD domain you own and you maybe powerless to do much about it
I think this has always been one of the best reasons for investing in country code domains.
Sure, the Internet is global. But, borders are inevitable. As with any new frontier, borders are few and far between in the beginning. That usually changes.
Earth is primarily divided into countries.
And, what do countries want?
Gimme a C …Gimme an A …Gimme as S …Gimme an H!
What’s that spell? TAXES!
You can bet the smart countries are going to keep a tight reign on their own country codes. Regulation will increase. Hopefully, fair protection to all parties involved will also increase. Of course, that may depend on lobbyists and special interest groups. So, there will undoubtedly be plenty of room for the average domainer to be “relieved of his investments” if the respective country has not implemented fair laws and processes.
At some point, countries like China and the US will no longer put up with ANY shit at all from some international company or regulatory agency. Eventually, they will assert FULL control of the National Asset known as the country code.
National cybersecurity will eventually mandate this.
One could speculate that all this makes ccTLDs very good investments.
I think this is being looked at through rose colored glasses, first off let me state I am not against cctlds and own .co.uk, .de and .tv domains.
But to think oh great ICANN cannot screw with me, but China or France or Cameroon can is a big problem too, you could easily have some political back and forth where a country did not like a trade policy and then make all foreign ownership or maybe just the country you live in specifically have no ownership rights to that countries cctld. Not saying that is going to happen but it could.
Michael you said no UDRP ? What solution do you have for the real cybersquatting ? I mean I read on another blog where guys said they want domainers to contact companies and basically rat out other domainers, I wonder will the phrase “Nobody likes a snitch” become “Nobody likes a snitch except a domainer” Will domainers start whistle blowing on other domainers ? That is an interesting concept IMO.
Dot
I didn’t make the rules up, just reporting on them.
If there is no UDRP available then recourse would lie in filing suit against the domain holder, the registrar and maybe the registry, but the registry might be based in the foreign country that sponsored the extension.
A ccTLD registry can adopt WIPO rules but few have
Michael I did not have a problem with what you wrote, I actually had to write about this a year ago on .tv because people were incorrectly assuming.
I just mentioned you wrote you were not for UDRP,
MHB permalink
JP
My vote is that no UDRP is a good thing.
and I just wondered what you thought would be the right solution ? For any extension gtld or cctld. No problem with anything you wrote, I was just saying that its not like everything is great because no ICANN, a country could just take away domains on their own so its not all risk free with cctld. Again IMO
Dot
The UDRP has a win rate of 85% for the complainants and we know of lots of horrible decisions where domains, were basically stolen from their owners, so I lose no sleep at night that ccTLD’s are not subject to them.
I am not a fan either and I am really focusing on the Gtld, what do you think we should have ? There needs to be something for the obvious TM squatting.
Ok it’s true that some countries, specially non democratic countries can also take away your domains, but i believe in most countries, democratic countries, that won’t be a problem. First of all a country is based on laws, and those laws apply to everyone equally, at least it should. In European countries (most of them), in the USA, and many other countries it’s very common for a normal john doe (any citizen) to win a law suit against the government or a company, i know that lobbies and money count, but the chances on both sides are more even.
Now at UDRP that’s not the case, a regular unknown domainer doesn’t stand a chance against a big company with millions and millions of dollars, and all the known horrible decisions just show that’s the way it is, so i prefer to take my chances with a government in a cctld, than with gtld’s if that’s how things keep going.
I believe most domainers will start to feel the same way, if their generic properties start to be taken away from them.
Since this article in 2009; I’m hoping some laws have been tightened up.
Please could somebody tell me if:
VeriSign own Network Solutions (registry portion) and Network Solutions & CentralNic, (Organic Names Limited) enter into a contract, headed by Network Solutions as the primary ‘partner’ and sell .uk.com domain names, are the contracts obliged to US Law?
CentralNic, who sell .uk.com make very clear their sales are bound by US Law and “third parties” … so one would think, it’s simple …. but?
Can I pursue; has anybody pursued VeriSign, Network Solutions & CentralNic / Organic Names, for the ‘dilution’ of a .com, into a .uk.com in United States Federal / Virginia Courts?
Thanks for any help!
Cheers, Graham.
Graham
Verisign does not own Network Solutions
Netsol is owned by Web.com publicly traded wwww
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:WWWW
CentralNic is a separate company from the above 2
com.uk domains are not the country code domain for the UK which is .co.uk
Hi Michael:
VeriSign retained a small portion and Network Solutions & CentralNic, (Organic Names Ltd) do have a working relationship, which nests under / within VeriSign.
It’s all so tightly bundled, yet very loose, at the same time.
Network Solutions have fluffed me off with stuff …
VeriSign have as yet to write an email reply, addressing things, which they (James Hubler) said would be done.
(Both cases been chatting with Top Lawyers, within. “Besoke” one might say.)
I’m just trying to get a Landcruise.uk.com ‘domain dispute’ from UDRP / WIPO into US Courts, as the “dilution” problem, I think I’ve got, being careful to place the correct words, in correct spaces, stems from a problem of negligence in the USA, which again, in my view matches the ‘symptoms’ of “contributory infringement”.
The reason: Now the “abusive” registrant has a UK Trademark, with my name, thus blocking me from marketing there “on the ground” or anywhere outside of Cyberspace. So I’m as one says in profane ^*&^&%#%##@##@!)( .
Basically I just need to find the correct US Court, to get a Trademark Infraction order, so that the above, collectively can return “my” mark protected brand, to me.
A brand name in use for so long, according to Trademark & Marks Law, 1st in Use, that it’s “Incontestable” because my created word, of Landcruise, has been active for so long.
Much of this is all juncture; but fairly well substantiated, so I’m scouring the Internet to learn more !!!
Cheers, Graham.