Most brands may never sign the ICANN contract

I'm not saying that but a new gTLD domain name "Internet Strategy" company is--

Why most brands may never sign the ICANN contract | gTLD.club: "It’s hard to believe that the governing body of the Internet [ICANN] could possibly have come up with an idea without really understanding how they were going to implement it... the very concept of privatisation of the Internet through adding dotBrands should have been a clear and obvious warning sign that things would need to be done differently...Yet the Registry Registrar Agreement (RRA) was created with some serious design flaws with regards to the brands. It astounds me to see that the brands are even entertaining the concept. The only possible reason for this is that the vast majority haven’t got a clue what they have and what they’re doing.... what will happen if the brand wishes to no longer run their TLD and who actually has control over the dotBrand? What many dotBrands have failed or seem to have not to have understood (especially those who have already signed with ICANN) is that the contract is not designed for trademarks. The agreements are basically a lease agreement that can be revoked from you and given to someone else. What brand on earth would allow for someone else to run their trademark on the internet without their approval?..." (emphasis added, read more at the link above)

Not a "clue what they [brands OR ICANN] have and what they're doing"--LOL!--$185,000+ down the drain!

Domain Mondo posts: