question Is ICA your friend?

[capybara]

As reported by TLDInvestors.com (as a follow up to https://www.namepros.com/threads/wi...n-the-u-s-court-on-behalf-of-the-ica.1178011/), the Internet Commerce Association is acting in favor of the Booking.com's attempt to have "booking.com" trademarked.

Should the Booking.com succeed, they are going to be significantly empowered to fight anyone who also happens to have a ...booking.com domain name, like NYВооking.соm or ТоkуоВооking.соm or ТоtаlВооking.соm etc. (no affiliation with the mentioned domain names or their owners, names are masked from index, these are only for the sake of example)

Its not hard to understand why the ICA supports this – most of their members are fat cat domain investors who have some of the very best single word .com domains, and if the big business sees the opportunity for monopolizing certain industries in this, the value of such single word domains is going to rise dramatically.

However, not so much benefit to the owners of prefix+word.com or word+word.com domains and the like.

 

[HotKey]

@Internet.Domains can you give us a bit of an overview of the conversation and what you learned? Interested to hear, and your initial skepticism sounds totally converted to that of a true believer! Many thanks in advance friend.

 

[oldtimer]

Thank you @Zak Muscovitch for taking my call today. Your passion for the domain community should not be understood, it is phenomenal!

After a lengthy and detailed conversation I am truly impressed with the accomplishments, over a range of different issues, under your leadership. I am truly impressed!

I feel the ICA is doing exemplary work for the domain investing community. Making progress, changes and setting higher standards for the benefit of the entire domain investing community. Again, I am truly impressed.

Thanks for all you are doing for the domain community Zak!

So we just have to take your word for this,

Why can't the rest of us also hear the details of their work that has impressed you to this extent.

IMO

 

[Zak Muscovitch]

Many thanks @Internet.Domains for reaching out, the great call, and sharing your thoughts with me. From the call I learned that we must do a better job of communicating what the ICA does, to the domain name community. I really appreciate it.

 

[Zak Muscovitch]

Do you think it would be helpful if the ICA held an interactive webinar for Namepros users?

 

[oldtimer]

Do you think it would be helpful if the ICA held an interactive webinar for Namepros users?

And you can mention the key points right here that has made a believer out of @Internet.Domains

 

[trelgor]

Do you think it would be helpful if the ICA held an interactive webinar for Namepros users?

Definitely!

 

[Zak Muscovitch]

Or you can mention the key points right here that has made a believer of @Internet.Domains

I think you would get a lot more out of hearing it from me personally in a conversation

Definitely!

OK, let's see who would be interested in a webinar,. I think you would get a lot more out of it than just reading a post from me where I wouldn't be able to provide much color.

 

[Internet.Domains]

@Internet.Domains can you give us a bit of an overview of the conversation and what you learned? Interested to hear, and your initial skepticism sounds totally converted to that of a true believer! Many thanks in advance friend.

The three main issues that I had were discussed. They are:

- .org takeover
- changes to .com
- UDRP issues

I am truly impressed with the work that the ICA has done for each issue above. They have been very involved with each issue. They are passionately representing the domain community and making our presence known. We have a voice and because of the ICA they (ICANN, organizations, governments) are listening and making changes for our benefit. Changes that wouldn't be done without the ICA's action.

The ICA's engagement is all action. They are not just talking about it. They are doing it. All action. I am truly impressed.

 

[oldtimer]

I think you would get a lot more out of hearing it from me personally in a conversation

Give us the key points here and you can have the webinar later, that's the only way that you can look as being transparent.

And it's best to hear it from you directly raher than from someone else (no disrespect intended towards @Internet.Domains)


IMO

 

[Lox]

@Zak Muscovitch In case any details of company change (For Profit), you should notify the crunchbase editorial or login and diy.

> crunchbase

 

[trelgor]

I would be interested to learn the overall landscape and how it's changing from the ICA perspective. The main issues and what is being done and could be done. We domainers seldom navigate these intricacies, and ignorance is a killer. I would also like to know how I can support this Don Quijote fairytale, without shelling out a fortune.

 

[HotKey]

The three main issues that I had were discussed. They are:

- .org takeover
- changes to .com
- UDRP issues

I am truly impressed with the work that the ICA has done for each issue above. They have been very involved with each issue. They are passionately representing the domain community and making our presence known. We have a voice and because of the ICA they (ICANN, organizations, governments) are listening and making changes for our benefit. Changes that wouldn't be done without the ICA's action.

The ICA's engagement is all action. They are not just talking about it. They are doing it. All action. I am truly impressed.

Thx ID. So going back to Don's original concern

Should the Booking.com succeed, they are going to be significantly empowered to fight anyone who also happens to have a ...booking.com domain name, like NYВооking.соm or ТоkуоВооking.соm or ТоtаlВооking.соm etc.

after the convo how do you feel about ICA and them protecting other legitimate uses on a generic term such as booking? Is it like a case-by-case scenario? And even so, I'm not sure how one could come to a ruling across the board, booking could easily be broken down into multiple geos having legitimate uses with the term.

 

[oldtimer]

Thx ID. So going back to Don's original concern

after the convo how do you feel about ICA and them protecting other legitimate uses on a generic term such as booking? Is it like a case-by-case scenario? And even so, I'm not sure how one could come to a ruling across the board, booking could easily be broken down into multiple geos having legitimate uses with the term.

Transparency is what is needed here from ICA not only about this issue, but also about their overall mission and activities.

 

[HotKey]

Transparency is what is needed here from ICA not only about this issue, but also about their overall mission and activities.

I'm totally down with a webinar, it's about as transparent as you can get. But I also trust ID's output, he's a longtime advocate for the truth and generally has a good handle on things.

Awarding exclusivity to generic terms is something we should be moving away from, not towards. The Internet is evolving, we are all part of making sure it's for the better.

 

[oldtimer]

Awarding exclusivity to generic terms is something we should be moving away from, not towards. The Internet is evolving, we are all part of making sure it's for the better.

This is what I said a few posts earlier:

"Protecting special interest should not be the goal here, the mandate should be to protect all domain registrants.

If a company already has a category defining .com within a certain Industry that means that they already have a big advantage over everyone else.

In my opinion giving a trademark for that category defining .com will only open the door to monopolistic and predatory practices to stifle the competition."

Advocating for a multi billion dollar company and keeping things in a shroud of secrecy is not the way that ICA should be conducting itself as that is only going to raise more questions.

IMO

 

[Internet.Domains]

Thx ID. So going back to Don's original concern

after the convo how do you feel about ICA and them protecting other legitimate uses on a generic term such as booking? Is it like a case-by-case scenario? And even so, I'm not sure how one could come to a ruling across the board, booking could easily be broken down into multiple geos having legitimate uses with the term.

Thanks Hot!

We didn't discuss the "booking" case specifically, so I can't answer that.

 

[oldtimer]

Now, that being all said, I can appreciate that this is a difficult issue and the ICA did indeed struggle with it. For a case to get to the Supreme Court of the United States, it generally means that it is a difficult issue and that there are many perspectives on it, all of which are legitimate.

This was the first time that the ICA filed a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States.

How is ICA treating this multi billion dollar company,

As a .com registrant like any other

As a victim of some injustice like any other

Or as a client with unlimited financial resources that can provide a lucrative opportunity for ICA to enrich itself.

Filing a brief at the Supreme Court is neither easy nor cheap, how is ICA being compensated for all its efforts and to what extent are any financial arrangements between ICA and this company that has made ICA to decide to go out of its way to represent and defend it.

These questions can not be ignored and have to be answered here on this thread in order to show that there is Transparency in what ICA does, otherwise it might look like as if ICA has sold all domainers out for the opportunity to make some money for itself (perhaps a huge amount of money).

IMO

 

[HotKey]

If a company already has a category defining .com within a certain Industry that means that they already have a big advantage over everyone else.

I like this point.

 

[oldtimer]

I like this point.

You realize that this is not just a Trademark for a keyword that we are used to seeing usually,

ICA is going out of its way (supposedly while being compensated somehow which is not disclosed here) to advocate for a multi billion dollar company to be able to get a TM for a "generic category defining keyword + .com" which includes the .com as part of the TM and as such will be against the interest of all the other businesses and registrants who are using that generic category defining keyword as part of their .com domain.

Which as I said in couple of post earlier:

"In my opinion giving a trademark for that category defining .com will only open the door to monopolistic and predatory practices to stifle the competition."

IMO

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Should the Booking.com succeed, they are going to be significantly empowered to fight anyone who also happens to have a ...booking.com domain name, like NYВооking.соm or ТоkуоВооking.соm or ТоtаlВооking.соm etc. (no affiliation with the mentioned domain names or their owners, names are masked from index, these are only for the sake of example)

I'm curious how this impacts other dictionary terms that include *booking.com such as ScrapBooking.com



WHOIS Creation

ScrapBooking.com - November 1996

http://web.archive.org/web/19980110222150/http://scrapbooking.com:80/

Booking.com - April 1998

http://web.archive.org/web/20000917233534/http://www.booking.com/

In the above example comparing the WHOIS/Archive History of ScrapBooking.com VS Booking.com:

• ScrapBooking.com > Older than Booking.com in terms of WHOIS age
• ScrapBooking.com > Longer archive history of development dating as far back as January 1998, which is noted, before the April 1998 WHOIS creation date of Booking.com
  
  ***The first Booking.com archive.org entry is from September 2000, which yielded the above screenshot. Shortly after, my browser automatically forwarded to below GreatDomains.com URL
  

 

[jberryhill]

Or as a client with unlimited financial resources that can provide a lucrative opportunity for ICA to enrich itself.

Filing a brief at the Supreme Court is neither easy nor cheap, how is ICA being compensated for all its efforts and to what extent are any financial arrangements between ICA and this company that has made ICA to decide to go out of its way to represent and defend it.

First off, the ICA has no "clients". It is not a law firm and has no services to sell.

Secondly, it is pretty normal for organizations with an interest in an outcome in a case before the US Supreme Court to file amicus briefs (i.e. briefs NOT submitted at the behest of either party in the litigation).

In point of fact, some time ago, I had suggested to Zak that perhaps the ICA might consider whether they have a position in this, and to submit a brief. Zak found an attorney who was willing to do it at no charge to the ICA. That is also not unusual, because it allows them to get their work in front of a lot of people in their field of practice.

Beyond that initial conversation with Zak, I had no further input since I disagree with the ICA's position in this litigation. But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

 

[oldtimer]

But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

No accusations, just a few questions, I am sure that you agree that we need a little more Transparency from ICA.

Thanks for your post to clarify this situation, but ICA should make it clear as to whom they are advocating for and why.

I still believe that ICA should fight to protect the rights of all registrants and not to work to advance the agendas of the special Interest.

I also believe that decisions of this importance should be made by some kind of a board or a vote amongst high ranking members at ICA rather than be based on the judgment (and in some cases perhaps the agendas and interests) of just one person in this organization.

IMO

 

[trelgor]

First off, the ICA has no "clients". It is not a law firm and has no services to sell.

Secondly, it is pretty normal for organizations with an interest in an outcome in a case before the US Supreme Court to file amicus briefs (i.e. briefs NOT submitted at the behest of either party in the litigation).

In point of fact, some time ago, I had suggested to Zak that perhaps the ICA might consider whether they have a position in this, and to submit a brief. Zak found an attorney who was willing to do it at no charge to the ICA. That is also not unusual, because it allows them to get their work in front of a lot of people in their field of practice.

Beyond that initial conversation with Zak, I had no further input since I disagree with the ICA's position in this litigation. But the accusations above are fairly over the top.

What are your reservations or concerns?

 

[ProfitMaker]

ICA is a shill. Controlled oppposition. Posing as a domain owner friendly organisation, but totally sold out to corporate interests.

 

[Samer]

ICA is a shill. Controlled oppposition. Posing as a domain owner friendly organisation, but totally sold out to corporate interests.

feel like we’re making a breakthrough here

take your negativity elsewhere.

This is as open as i’ve ever seen them.
Special thanks to @jberryhill who went out of his way cleared up a few things.

Samer