Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an
organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh?
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
reverse-hijack domains and the selection of a handful of lackluster
TLDs from a pool of applicants paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
completely arbitrary and capricious process, perhaps you could point to
some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
reverse-hijack domains
Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the
better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
and the selection of a handful of lackluster
TLDs from a pool of applicants
Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster
TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new
TLDs in a dozen years.
More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And
that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?
paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various
other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go.
Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a
performance bond.
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
perhaps you could point to
some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully
envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more
sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has
the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even
consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
We've added some good people in the elections, and I have high hopes.
I apologize for bringing this whole thing on NANOG, but I do have some
objections to your comments.
Have you looked at the .org situation (with the new proposed VeriSign
agreement and everything) lately? http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001 is full of
angry .org domain owners who have been told nothing officially by ICANN
except some vague segments of press releases and proposed agreements that
many choose to interpret as indicating that their domains will be taken away
because they don't match some "arbitrary and capricious" requirements, to
use the words of the poster you're replying to. Whether this is ICANN's real
intention or not remains to be seen, but that's what is being assumed for
now.
I don't have high hopes, unlike you; I fail to see how ICANN can totally
ignore their own forum (except to post one vague little thing saying nothing
a long time ago) filled with hundreds of angry people where all it would
take is a simple "No, our new rules will only apply to new .org domains" to
appease the masses. The public is participating, absolutely, but what I see
it particupating in is a rant-fest of angry .org owners, not a valuable
dialog with ICANN that could lead somewhere constructive.
Please tell me how to put my hopes on an elevator or a plane, because
currently they're rather low, and will remain that way until ICANN starts
being a little more forthcoming.
Vivien
NOTE: I am speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of the organization
mentioned in my signature, for which I am a volunteer, even though
dyndns.org is a .org, obviously, and non-profit.
Why does anyone care?
just setup your dns servers to point *.(newnetstlds) to your own web site
saying that they dont work.
Christian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
>
> Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> reverse-hijack domainsAwhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the
better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Here's a few to get you started:
barcelona.com
dodgevipers.com
bodacious-tatas.com
corinthians.com
crew.com
kwasizabantu.com
tonsil.com
Also, you can see: http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm which is an
analysis of the UDRP done by Dr. Milton Mueller.
Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster
TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new
TLDs in a dozen years.More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And
that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?> paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various
other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go.
Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
Except that those that paid 50k and were rejected have absolutely zero to
show for the attempt.
> completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
The personal experience of being there. They completely winged it, and
were fumbling around on stage for ways to decide which TLDs to choose. Try
listening to the Real Audio broadcast sometime.
> perhaps you could point to
> some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
The public had nothing to do with the selection of the TLDs in
question, the only elected board members weren't seated until
after the decisions had been made(convienent that.) Currently a study is
being undertaken to see if an "At large membership"(the public) and the
associated board seats are appropriate at all.
Patrick,
> ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
reverse-hijack domains
From the Wired article:
[New.Net CEO] Hernand said New.net will follow ICANN's
dispute resolution policy. "The system is not perfect.
Trademark issues are complicated, but we determined
this is the best approach for now."
Sounds like new.net will be using the same UDRP that ICANN is.
and the selection of a handful of lackluster
TLDs from a pool of applicants paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
I don't think anyone would claim ICANN has done a good job in dealing with adding top level domains. It isn't clear to me that new.net's approach is any better (in fact, I figure it is significantly worse). As an aside, I believe new.net approached Nominum to provide services and we declined -- we are interested in helping to make the DNS infrastructure better, not helping it devolve into chaos.
perhaps you could point to
some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
Like plumbing, you should only notice ICANN when it breaks. The fact that ICANN continues to exist despite the absolute insanity now associated with the DNS is a success.
Rgds,
-drc
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Any one involving a person's name. The basic principle that you have a
right to use your name in trade (which simply means that no one can prevent
a name from being used!) has been turned on its head.
DS
William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> writes:
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
>
> Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> reverse-hijack domainsAwhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the
better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by
"reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is
"walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up
criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently
claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual
trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site,
and ICANN somehow agreed.
I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall
seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if
you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up.
-----ScottG.
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
avery labels is the classic to which a lot of my lawyer friends refer
randy
I know a guy whose name happens to be the same as a popular British
designer clothing line. For privacy purposes, I'll call him, and the
designer, Joe Blow. He owns and uses joeblow.com, and the designer has
a website at joeblow.co.uk. But now the designer has decided that they
want joeblow.com, and are sending in the landsharks.
If he can weather the legal storm, I think he'll win, because (a) it's him
name and (b) he's actively using the domain. Have there been any cases of
the original owner losing in a similar scenario?
-C
Personally, I would hope that the rules would be the same as if you were
trying to start a new business or magazine with the name in the domain
name (I am making no judgement on how close UDRP is to that ideal). By
that criteria, I am sure that if you tried to start a company or magazine
named "Walmart Sucks" you would hear from their lawyers and they would be
equally successful.
John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
Parody and criticism are protected under trademark law(although those
rights are being eroded quickly.)
Yes, if I wanted to write an article talking about how much I disliked
Walmart I can use their name as long as I am careful about libel/slander.
However, I think a web site's domain name is closer to a magazine title or a
company name (depending on its use) and thus exceeds that right. IANAL,
this is just my opinion.
The big problem is that these IP laws were written long before many of these
technologies were even thought of and applying current technology to old
laws is open to interpretation. It would be nice to clarify them, although
recent attempts (ie, DMCA, FCC ruling on HD signals) have added as many
problems as they solved.
John A. Tamplin jat@jaet.org
770/436-5387 HOME 4116 Manson Ave
770/431-9459 FAX Smyrna, GA 30082-3723
No one has a sense of humor any more. A lot of folks have had
<companyname>sucks.com taken away from them due to "trademark violations".
Charles
Which brings me to the interesting borderline case:
Can WIPO take away hostname records?
Pi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
To be "on topic", the addition of new pseudo-TLDs by a well-funded
pirate organization concerns me greatly. As several have noted, this
is going to be a support nightmare. In short, the pirate new.net is
trying to make money by taking it out of my pocket.
The DNS is much more fragile than we like to admit. Security is not
widely deployed. The most secure versions of BIND are having
birthing pains.
To combat this piracy, we need a signed root, and resolvers that won't
accept the insecure version.
Including me. In my case, the company and I came to an amicable
resolution; no arbitration, no lawsuit. Others aren't as lucky.
I disagree that this type of activity is an infringement, but I'm not a
lawyer.
Why does anyone care?
just setup your dns servers to point *.(newnetstlds) to your own web site
saying that they dont work.
Is that any better of an idea than using new.net in the first place? It
probably would have worked, for some definition of "worked", had you not
deliberately made it fail. That's dishonest, and if your users have any
brains, they'll find friends for whom it does work, and will come
complaining to you - and rightfully so.
I think you should check out some of the many domains 2600 magazine has
managed to successfully keep. It numbers into the hundreds.
Most of them are variations on "companynamesucks.com" and
"companynamereallysucks.com", with quite a few "fuckcompany.com" thrown
in.
My favorite is "verizonshouldspendmoretimefixingtheirnetworkandlessmoneyonlawyers.com".