ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    New gTLDs ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    posted by michael on Tuesday March 19 2002, @07:31AM

    Richard_Henderson writes "It was revealed in an e-mail from ICANN today that they were proposing to close down the New TLD Forum, their most popular Public Forum (which has received over 7000 contributions in recent months). This, in a week when Stuart Lynn branded it "a joke" and initiated action to free the Board from democratic accountability to the online community.

    [Editor's note: this was submitted a couple of days ago, and I held it thinking that surely the poster had to be the victim of a hoax. I emailed several people at ICANN asking them to confirm or deny the planned closure. No one replied. And now all of a sudden the Forum has a big red notice saying "closed". That will teach me. -mf]"



    The New TLD Forum has brought to light much information on the chaos and fraud surrounding the roll-out of the .info and .biz names. Now members of the forum are fighting back, arguing that the TLD roll-out is far from finished and demanding a voice for the internet public and the ordinary consumer.

    The New TLD agreements have been advertised as ICANN's "proof of concept"... well, the "proof of concept" is far from proven, in fact it remains a shambles.

    The public forum has followed the working out of the TLD agreements and commented on them, providing a vital analysis from the standpoint of the consumer and the internet public.

    Early on it challenged the assumption that a trademark name (held by hundreds of different companies) could be rightly assigned to one entity at what ICANN called "Sunrise".

    Before Sunrise even took place, it predicted that the system would be abused and warned the so-called professionals.

    It questioned the right of ICANN to hijack a TLD like .biz from a company that was already making its living from it.

    As the first Sunrise frauds came to light, it blew the whistle on domain-squatters like Govinda Leopold, the Afilias board member who obtained fake Sunrise names through the use of phoney Trademark numbers.

    It predicted the scale of the fraud would be in the region of 20% - a claim strongly refuted by Michael Palage but which later turned out to be absolutely correct.

    It was vindicated by the resignation of Afilias Director Robert Connelly, who called the .info Sunrise an "abomination".

    It offered through the Domebase solution an equitable and commonsense solution to the Sunrise fiasco, but was ignored by ICANN and Afilias.

    It brought to light deliberate falsification of Trademark data by Registars, and extracted admissions from executives like Lars Hindsley.

    It revealed the way in which companies like Speednames (represented on the Afilias board) and Domainbank (run by Afilias CEO Lubsen) had profited by a total exceeding $500,000 to abuse Afilias's own Sunrise system, by submitting facially ineligible Trademark data.

    It published the hundreds of names falsely registered by ICANN accredited registrars, and asked why ICANN was prepared to support these companies, and accommodate their fraud without sanction.

    It called on Vint Cerf and Stuart Lynn to enter into dialogue and just talk about some of these very serious concerns.

    It showed the world the "scam" of the same names being sold first for the Landrush, then at Sunrise, and now being sold yet again for a third time at Landrush 2.

    It worked co-operatively and asked questions which it was fair and reasonable to ask.

    And the New TLD Agreements STILL require a forum as long as the "proof of concept" has not reached its chaotic conclusion. Because the key issues for discussion are not the paperwork, but how these agreements work out in practice and impact upon consumers.

    In short, with over 10000 key .info generics still unaccounted for and locked up; and even more key .biz names lost in a void after legal action; it has to be said that the real roll-out has hardly even begun.

    This same week, the ICANN board under Stuart Lynn's discredited leadership has initiated steps to remove the democratically accountable elements of the Board. Even senior congressmen have had enough of ICANN's opaque dealings.

    And to cap it all, Stuart Lynn has marginalised the Public Forum as "a joke".

    It's absolutely simple : forums of this kind (which has had over 7000 contributions in its short life) are a tiny window through which some light of truth may shine.

    In a free and democratic society it is right that consumers should be protected; that consumers should ask fair questions; and that executives who claim the right to administer a worldwide resource (for all humanity) should be answerable and accountable in an open and honest process.

    To say that ICANN has failed in this duty is a huge understatement. It has known (and been made aware) of successive frauds. It has been party to contracts which facilitated these frauds. And it has presided over the fraudulent activities of its protege registrars which it continues to accredit and promote - without sanction or public criticism.

    This new TLD forum is not over, because the internet community will not be sidelined by a quango which grows self-perpetuating and drifts further and further from the consumers it purports to serve.

    Vint Cerf had a not insignificant reputation in the past. Much indeed has been owed to him in times gone by. But he has kept silent. He has evaded this group. By association with ICANN, he has presided over processes which ran away from public comment. Processes which surrendered the consumer interest of small businesses and the internet community in favour of big business and the Trademark lobby.

    He has sided with those who were prepared to accommodate a culture of corruption. He has presided over the defrauding of Landrush customers who lost in the region of $3,000,000. He has presided over the fraudulent actions and the imbecilic ineptitude of the Afilias Board and executive. He has smiled benignly at the corrupt Registrars and when proven corrupt, he has continued to accredit them and promote them in the name of ICANN.

    Where is the consumer in all this?

    Where is the protection for ordinary people?

    That is, primarily, what the ICANN public forum has all been about.

    ICANN's defence has repeatedly been that this has all been a "proof of concept". But the losses sustained as a result of fraud, as a result of Registry and Registrar abuse, as a result of non-existent safeguards - these were not a "proof of concept" : these were real people losing real money, losing real time, losing real ideals and plans for their future.

    The members of the public forum wish to continue to monitor the implementation of the New TLD agreements.

    No open, honest and transparent organisation could deny that it has an important role to fulfil, and any half-decent organisation would value the input, dialogue and co-operation that this forum can offer.

    It is not yet appropriate to close this forum. It would be more appropriate for ICANN to question the continuing mandate of its own executive.

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • wish to continue
  • e-mail
  • the New TLD Forum
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 58 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday March 19 2002, @09:11AM (#5399)
    User #2810 Info
    As far as ICANN scandals go, I put this one well down the list. ICANN is now in the process of evaluating the new TLDs (in fact it is overdue in that task, like just about everything else). I fail to see why those wishing to post can't just move over to this more appropriate forum that has been up for some time.

    M. Stuart Lynn, while discussing the NTEPPTF at Accra, said that 42 comments had been received, of which 2 were on-topic. Sadly, the signal to noise ratio of the just closed forum wasn't much better. Certainly, much good information has come out of there, I said so myself here on ICANNWatch 7 months ago, but it's time to move on, or over.

    Or off ICANN entirely, seeing as they never respond (and probably don't read) their own forums, that also could be looked at as a solution, and would disable ICANN from pulling the plug, at least by that method. I'm assuming that amongst the many posters to that forum who are speculators (who generate most of the noise), there must be someone with a domain that could be put to use. -g

    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday March 19 2002, @02:13PM (#5412)
    User #2810 Info
    Some may, but in fact it's the thirtieth forum that ICANN has closed, at least five of which were set up to deal with new TLDs. I posted to some of them and wasn't surprised (or disenfranchised) when they were closed. It's also not surprising that this one has also reached the end of its role, as the new TLDs have all now more or less been approved. However, the new TLD process is still being evaluated, and that forum is still open. As much of the discussion of the just closed forum was to do with evaluating the rollout of new TLDs it was arguably going on in the wrong place anyway, as M. Stuart Lynn then couldn't have made the claim in Accra that I mention above.

    I suspect that ICANN may well shut down all those forums, M. Stuart Lynn hinted as much when he called them a joke, but with the heat they're taking right now they may wait awhile. If/when they do that, I'd be more in agreement that discussion is being stifled. But, like the NetSol domain policy list (which didn't even leave archives when it went away), if you're going to hold pointed discussions in the belly of the beast, eventually you can expect to be expelled. -g

    But don't get me wrong
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Tuesday March 19 2002, @02:49PM (#5413)
    User #2810 Info
    That record by Richard Henderson of some of the useful posts on that forum is really quite impressive. I'm glad he's posted it on the still open forum. If there ever comes a day of reckoning the question can be asked why ICANN never dealt with any of these problems even though they had received repeated notification of them. -g
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by tlr (roesslerNO@SPAMdoes-not-exist.org) on Wednesday March 20 2002, @02:26AM (#5419)
    User #34 Info | http://log.does-not-exist.org/
    I have to admit that I find myself in agreement with Stuart on considering the current public forum system a "joke". It is. And we all know that there are better forms of public discussion than unmoderated and unstructured web forums. ICANNwatch is just one example.
    Need a structure to have a successful web forum
    by edelman@law.harvard. on Wednesday March 20 2002, @08:02AM (#5433)
    User #884 Info | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman.html
    Absolutely agreed that structure is key for a successful web forum. The Berkman Center's 2000 Deliberative Discourse project (http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projects/deliberation/) fleshed out this idea at some length (perhaps longer than most people care to read!).

    I once offered ICANN staff some thoughts re improvements to their forum -- architectural changes that would be helpful in improving the quality of discussion there. I can't say that I got much of a constructive response -- though, in their defense, the enhancements weren't obviously going to be that easy or cheap (likely requiring the existing forum.icann.org software with something totally different, for example), and they were certainly plenty busy with other projects.
    Re: Need a structure to have a successful web foru
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday March 22 2002, @05:49AM (#5499)
    User #2810 Info
    Ya, one wonders if Kent Crispin's job description includes feeding the shredder. -g
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Wednesday March 20 2002, @02:30AM (#5420)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    I don't agree very often with ICANN leadership, but I have to agree that, for the most part, the ICANN forums are a joke. While some meaningful information did come to light there, it's mostly a wasteland of whining, bellyaching, repetitive tirades, and (worst of all in terms of lowering the signal-to-noise ratio) huge numbers of one-liner "me-too" postings from people who seem to think it's a chat room rather than a commentary forum. Whoever got the "brilliant" idea that they could write their message entirely in the subject line and end it with "EOM" should be taken out and shot. That's resulted in the visible messages on the forum screen consisting largely of that sort of useless garbage and causing meaningful messages to be lost in the noise.

    ICANNWatch seems to have a higher proportion of meaningful messages, with the exception of a brief period a few months ago when the mindless chatterers seemed to be trying to take it over.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by Richard_Henderson on Wednesday March 20 2002, @01:01PM (#5445)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/
    The point is, Dan, that consumers do need opportunities to challenge organisations like ICANN which are meant to be run for the public good.

    I cannot agree that the forum in question was a "joke" because (if you use your own judgement to sidestep fun messages which don't go on target) the issues are not ones which should be trivialised by Stuart Lynn as "a joke".

    As with the marginalisation of Robert Connelly by Afilias, or the marginalisation of Auerbach by ICANN, Stuart Lynn was trying to marginalise that part of the Internet public which was actually asking challenging questions which deserved - at least - some detailed answers.

    Instead of which, ICANN has failed to enter any dialogue over a range of issues that had seriously impacted on consumers.

    Again and again and again, both on this forum, by e-mail, or on ICANN's other various forums, Vint and Stuart have been begged to explain... but instead... we get evasion... marginalisation... silence.

    It is absolutely clear that ICANN was running scared from the forum in question, because the fair and serious-minded questions being raised were awkward and inconvenient.

    If ICANN exists for the benefit of the Internet public, we should expect better. We should reasonably expect openness. We should reasonably expect responses. Instead of which, we get what I'd call the NetSol culture of never-answered questions or avoidance of information.

    We deserve better.

    And in the face of this, and in the context of serious issues, NO, I do not think the forum was a joke.

    If you believe in freedom and democracy, then recognise that you're going to have to tolerate some background noise and trivia... but I expect a primarily American institution to practice openness, dialogue, explanation, and be aware that evasion and "insider decisions" are just not acceptable.

    If Stuart Lynn was prepared (himself, or through his staff) to go one by one through ten of the most serious concerns raised on that forum, and enter into detailed dialogue to defend ICANN's actions, then the forums would have even more value.

    It is not the members of the public who have made these forums a joke, but the inability (or unwillingness) of the ICANN staff to participate openly and constructively has reduced their effectiveness.

    I take the view that that is because ICANN has its own agenda and its own standards of business practice, which fall short of the expectations of open-minded members of the public or consumers.

    Many people have been inconvenienced or defrauded as an outcome of ICANN's maladministration.

    I do not call that a joke, Dan.

    And I do not think it is a "joke" to participate in a public forum which raises these issues.

    Kind regards and thanks for your own contributions to the expired forum, and your openness in posting in your own name - but I don't agree with you, and I think Stuart Lynn was wrong, patronising, and offensive to deride the hard work and serious contributions of so many people represented at the heart of the New TLDS Agreements forum.

    Classic marginalisation of those who are a threat to you.

    Richard
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by Richard_Henderson on Wednesday March 20 2002, @12:34PM (#5444)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/
    Hello "Anonymous"

    Have you been participating actively in that forum? The majority of regular participants would take an opposite view to yours. The problem with the forum has been ICANN's failure to enter into the dialogue, or to respond to the fair and serious points raised there (among occasional wild messages you get in any unmoderated forum or free society).

    Garry Anderson's messages have been fairly clear and consistent. He's not been "flaming" as you put it, but he has regularly raised relevant issues - and the need to repeat serious issues is because ICANN is running scared of answering criticisms that indict them... they get "anonymous" posters to try to back them up instead.

    Garry's main point is straightforward. He has questioned why the New TLD agreements accommodated a "Sunrise" privilege for trademark holders, when it is absolutely obvious that many generic words have scores if not hundreds of trademarks against them all over the world. His point is one of simple logic : what gives just ONE of those trademark holders the right to claim a generic word (belonging to the whole human race) when hundreds of other people may have equal claims?

    Furthermore, the outworking of the Sunrise "abomination" (to quote Afilias director Robert Connelly) vindicated his scepticism about a hopelessly flawed agreement : thousands after thousands of names applied for dishonestly by registrars linked to the staff and board of Afilias.

    Why, in a free society, is it seen as a bad thing to criticise bad systems?

    The people being criticised on the ICANN public forums are not consumers and members of the Internet public like Garry Anderson, but executives who talk endlessly about transparency and accountability - but who run away from dialogue; try to marginalise critics; and seem accountable to no-one.

    Why did Vint Cerf or Stuart Lynn or one of their staff not answer the many fair and serious questions posted on the forum? They evaded the criticism by simply not answering.

    Do you think that there were no legitimate concerns raised in that forum?

    Are you kidding?

    Who are you, my friend? You know who I am. I believe in openness and dialogue. But, my "anonymous" friend - the executives at ICANN run away from forums, run away from disclosure, run away from people who challenge their autocracy.

    The DNS is a worldwide resource - a benefit for the whole world community. If Vint and Stuart can't operate it in a wholly open and responsive way, then they should make way for people who will.

    They have presided over fraud, they have presided over bad agreements, they advertise dishonest registrars, they fail to answer questions (or get their staff to). Why on earth shouldn't people like Garry Anderson and other members of the Internet public raise issues in the face of this kind of management?

    They are not alone. They are being sued by one of their own Directors. They are being criticised by Congressmen. The two most significant TLDs were a farcical shambles - which resulted in loss and inconvenience to consumers.

    ICANN exists for the public, and open discussion is nothing to worry about... unless they have things they should be worried about... it is their management, and not the forum, which is "a joke".

    I wish you'd choose to post messages in your own name. I wish people like you and the ICANN authorities would participate openly in the forums, and engage in open discussion about the serious issues being raised.

    Have a nice day.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Wednesday March 20 2002, @04:41PM (#5449)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Some of the typical content of the ICANN forums:

    1) Garry Anderson's canned spiel about how trademark protection of domain names doesn't work, and the only rational solution is to create a special namespace just for trademark owners and don't give them special rights anywhere else. I mostly agree (though not necessarily quite to his degree of radicality), but reading it for the 123rd time doesn't really add much.

    2) Jim Fleming's recitations about how we all need to switch to IPv8, a protocol which Jim Fleming seems to be the only person who actually understands, but which seems to involve name resolution via subdomains of in-addr.TLD (for various values of "TLD"). Conveniently, Mr. Fleming owns some of the in-addr.* domains in various TLDs. Supposedly, all domain owners (whether in ICANN's root or alternative roots) need to rush to re-register their names under IPv8 and the in-addr sites or they'll be left behind in the Next Generation Internet. To demonstrate the widespread interest in IPv8, Fleming normally cites URLs which always turn out to go either to one of his own Web sites or to his postings in other forums, which in turn cite his other Web sites and postings in other forums... you never do manage to find another person besides him who has even heard of IPv8, let alone knows why anybody ought to use it.

    3) The Speculator Brigade: a whole gang of folk whose plans to get rich quick on domain names have been cruelly foiled by the evil criminal acts of ICANN, the registrars, and/or the registries. Their purpose for hanging out on the forum is to commiserate with one another about how noble they are and how evil the companies and organizations running the system are. To this end, they make a whole volley of postings in response to every real or imagined action or inaction on the part of the Guilty Parties, saying how this proves they're all a bunch of criminals and they must be about to get their comeuppance just about now. Sometimes interesting information comes out in these exchanges, like when one of them posts copies of email correspondence with a registrar or registry, or points the forum members to a relevant Web site or news article. Other times it's just rumor-mongering nearly empty of true facts (and anybody who pours cold water on them by pointing out actual facts that contradict the pet theory of the day gets flamed and accused of being part of the evil conspiracy). The one certainty is that anything done by ICANN, the registries, or the registrars, will be interpreted as an evil plot -- case in point: right after September 11th, both Afilias and Neulevel were roundly criticized on the forums for their insensitivity in not postponing their launches to accommodate those affected by the tragic attacks -- then, after both registries did move their deadlines accordingly, they got attacked on the forums for changing their rules in the middle of the game.

    4) The Me-Too Crowd: People with nothing particularly meaningful to say, but who clutter up the forum with one-liner replies to whatever else is posted, treating the forum like a chat room.

    5) Flamers and Bickerers: They must be accessing the forum from a kindergarten recess yard; their "contribution" is to make silly, petty, off-topic attacks on one another. It takes two to argue, but only two arguers can drown out all other conversation in a forum -- it's even more effective if one or more of the others start taking sides too. The argument needn't have anything whatsoever to do with domain policy; it can start with one person playing a childish prank on another (e.g., signing in using a username resembling another participant's and posting drivel even more idiotic than usual for the forum, hoping the other participant will be blamed), and if a second member takes the bait (e.g., posting scads of whiny posts about how evil the first prankster was to imitate the second one's username, and how the forum moderator had better ban the first guy immediately or else...) then the entire forum is taken up with this war.

    Like I said, some useful and interesting stuff is there, but it's hard to find in all the mess.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday March 20 2002, @05:07PM (#5450)
    User #2810 Info
    I agree with you almost completely Dan, as usual, though I also can't disagree with Richard Henderson's posts elsewhere on this thread. Look on the good side. By having these forums, other forums like the ALSC and GA lists, for example, probably have a slightly lower noise level. Some of the regulars have now suggested that they take it over to Usenet. I'm sure they'll fit right in. -g
    Canned Spiel
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday March 21 2002, @03:22AM (#5461)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Hello folks - Garry here.

    Quote:

    1) Garry Anderson's canned spiel about how trademark protection of domain names doesn't work, and the only rational solution is to create a special namespace just for trademark owners and don't give them special rights anywhere else. I mostly agree (though not necessarily quite to his degree of radicality), but reading it for the 123rd time doesn't really add much.

    123 times? Thanks Dan - did not know you were keeping count ;-)

    You misrepresent me slightly - saying I don't give trademarks special rights anywhere else. Obviously they have legal protection against passing off, libel etc.

    Trademarks are a good thing - for people as well as business.

    It is fact: I am just stating the TRUTH - that authorities know how to allow ALL trademarks to use their mark.

    That they can do this without any of the problems of 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.

    I think you miss the point. The main problems are due to Big Business trying to take over the Internet and claim all name-space.

    Paul Mockapetris created the DNS to provide a mechanism for naming resources - not as a replacement trademark system.

    He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? His reply, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn’t be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."

    P.S. You left out yourself from that list - but I will not stereotype your postings. Just to say some useful and interesting stuff is there ;-)

    To others - If you want the truth about trademarks and domain names - please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org !
    That's 124 .......... EOM :)
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 21 2002, @04:30AM (#5464)
    User #2810 Info
    -g
    P.P.S.
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday March 21 2002, @04:52AM (#5465)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    Dan forgot to mention that I advocate many reserved TLDs for trademark owners - for advertising and marketing - not just one special namespace e.g. nissan.car etc.

    And not just on ICANN forum:

    e.g. KevinSpacey.actor

    http://www.canadacomputes.com/v3/story/1,1017,7689,00.html

    That's 125 .......... EOM :)
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 21 2002, @01:27AM (#5457)
    User #2810 Info
    You shot yourself in the foot by registering those names. -g
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Thursday March 21 2002, @05:07AM (#5466)
    User #2810 Info
    Politicians from a number of countries have sued or used the UDRP to attempt to get their names back, sometimes successfully. You've done much good research, and used it to make logical arguments that reach reasonable conclusions. It's unlikely Fred Upton will want to hear them if he's filing against you. Nor will Vint likely take kindly to what amounts to a threat. No-one who you really need to influence will take you seriously either.

    If you want to register FredUptonRulez.com or VintonCerfSucks.info and actually use them for something related, have at it. ICANN hasn't done anything to quell speculation mania because that is a large part of paying their outrageous bills. You'd cause more change at ICANN by burning your money than by registering names. -g

    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Thursday March 21 2002, @05:28AM (#5467)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    If these are intended to be noncommercial sites for commentary and information, why use .com addresses? Wouldn't .info or .org be more appropriate?
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Thursday March 21 2002, @06:33AM (#5475)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    "Commonsense dictates that if you want to put the spotlight on a person, you go straight for their .com!"

    ...if you want to imply that your site is trying to make money off of that person, that is.

    There actually are a few UDRP decisions that imply that the panelists are sometimes more willing to accept the legitimacy of the use of somebody's name in a domain for the purpose of commentary or criticism when it's in a TLD that doesn't imply that it's a commercial site.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by Richard_Henderson on Thursday March 21 2002, @09:24AM (#5481)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/
    Thanks Dan

    I see what you're saying now.

    Anyway, I'm not posting anymore on my methods / use of domains - but thanks for your advice.

    What concerns me is the issues that have gone unexplained and unanswered.

    In answer to an earlier thread, if I was Vint or Stuart's attorney, I would tell them to shut up and say nothing about these issues.

    But the fact remains that that isn't open and transparent governance.

    They should have NOTHING to hide or stay silent about.

    They and ICANN should be working in openness and dialogue in the interests of the worldwide public, and they should disclose ALL ICANN's financial details, and they should disclose ALL transactions and discussions to ALL their Directors, and notify Directors of meetings in good time, and they should uphold contracts, and police their implementation (calling them in if broken), and they should cease to give accreditation to registrars who have broken the rules, acted fraudulently and deceived the consumer.

    In short, ICANN should exist for the worldwide internet public, and NOT for itself, or for the community of registrars with whom it colludes and interacts.

    ICANN should not be opaque. It should be transparent.

    Fred Upton's subcommittee on telecommunications and the internet would do well to question the lack of openness, and lack of day-to-day accountability. It should also question why ICANN has left unexplained so many aspects of the New TLD roll-outs, and the concerns over flimsy Sunrise procedures, and the concerns over conflicts of interest which saw Afilias executives and directors break the very rules they agreed to in the first place. They should also get some administrative staff to analyse the detail of the Public Forum recently closed...

    ...because they will discover documented breaches of trust, and a clear record of ICANN's failure to intervene or respond to fair and reasoned concerns.
    Credibility and Bad Faith
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday March 21 2002, @09:03AM (#5480)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    I would say those gentlemen were acting in Bad Faith and lack any credibility - because they are not doing their job properly.

    As well as being incompetent, they have shown contempt and arrogance towards the Internet community.

    Richard is not using domains for speculative or squatting purposes - he has fair use - for free speech issues.

    Just like WIPO.org.uk is to UN WIPO.

    Are you the same Anonymous Coward that did not answer my questions - because he was to frightened to tell the truth?

    I have no problem with people being anonymous - but at least get yourself a handle pal.
    Re: ICANN Closes Most Popular Comment Forum
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Saturday March 23 2002, @04:27AM (#5514)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    every dot-info registration means one less dot-com renewal.

    I don't see how that's true. Even registrants who changed their site addresses directly from .com to .info probably mostly won't let their old .com addresses expire because of the predators who register expiring domains and put up porn sites. Other .info registrations are for sites that were formerly .org, .us, or other non-.com domains, or for sites that didn't have any domain at all before. Thus, the new TLD grew the market instead of shrinking it.
    These companies also benefit greatly by speculative registartions, fueled by the trade in "aftermarket" domain names. This market would have collapsed if new TLD were to have succeeded,

    Another dubious statement; I'd think that the success of a new TLD would increase the degree of speculation in new TLDs, rather than decreasing it.
    It has been a year since pre-registration has been open for these domains and the only serious website so far is the one by the American Handball Association, and who would want to set up in a TLD that has been so marred by scandal, anyway?

    How about the New York MTA whose mta.info site is advertised to all commuters passing through Grand Central Station? That seems pretty high-profile to me. The scandals regarding new TLDs have been pretty much confined to a few websites and message boards; the general public doesn't know or care about them.


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    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