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 What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Restrictions
    posted by michael on Friday May 31 2002, @05:55AM

    BenEdelman writes "According to .NAME's contract with ICANN and according to .NAME's registration agreement (which all registrants must accept), .NAME domain registrations are to be "personal names" -- defined to be "a person's legal name, or a name by which the person is commonly known." Nonetheless, in my recent research, I've documented 5000+ distinct .NAME domains that seem inconsistent with this criteria -- names of companies (sharper.image.name), organizations (harvard.university.name), products (allergy.tylenolallergysinus.name), and geographic locations (stateof.california.name), for example, along with a variety of names related to sexually-explicit content and domain name registration. These many registrations, constituting more than 8% of currently-registered .NAME domains, call into question the effectiveness of enforcement of .NAME registration restrictions."



    My full results are available at
    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/name-restrictions/.
    Materials available at this site include a full listing of names seemingly not conforming to .NAME eligibility requirements, tabulations by keyword, tabulations by registrar, and tabulations by registrant for top registrants. I've also examined the market structure that led to these results and suggested some possible policy improvements that might prevent or reduce such problems in the future.

    Ben Edelman
    Berkman Center for Internet & Society
    Harvard Law School

     
      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  
  • http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/p eople/edelman/name-restriction s/
  • Ben Edelman
  • Berkman Center for Internet & Society
  • recent research
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Restrictions | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 185 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: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday May 31 2002, @11:43AM (#6622)
    User #2810 Info
    One name on Ben's list rang a dim bell, Paul Jeffries of Huston (with 55 apparently non-conforming names). And here is where I remember it from. He owned bn.com for a short while (before and after that it belonged to Barnes and Noble). Not particularily on-topic, just wonder if it is the same person. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @12:34PM (#6627)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Quite clearly, GNR are - and have been - openly advertising for people to register all of the following:-

    (1) Actual Personal Names
    (2) Aliases / Alter Egos
    (3) Fictional Names / Cartoon Characters
    (4) Trademarks
    (5) Famous Phrases
    (6) Food and Health-conscious Words

    and, by implication of their list of forbidden words and phrases,

    (5) Pretty much anything else as well, as it is virtually impossible and financially impractical to censor and filter what can and cannot be registered (which I fully concur with)

    So, yes, .NAME is PRIMARILY intended for PERSONAL NAMES, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY!

    ps
    Can you please show us this so-called agreement with ICANN?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @02:07PM (#6646)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Thanks very much for that Ben, some good and generally very thorough research there!

    The problem is, aren't you being just a tad legalistic in your approach to this?

    Surely, someone registering OUR.FAMILY.NAME or *.FAMILY.NAME, THE.*.NAME or even [firstname].[firstname] or [lastname].[lastname].NAME is basically pretty much in keeping with the 'spirit' of what dot name is all about? Okay, yes, it may not fulfil the 'letter' of the so-called Eligibility Requirement Policy, but so what, unless that registration is abusive or clearly cybersquatting? Who cares if it 'technically' is invalid?

    If someone has registered it, it has been accepted and paid for, so why shouldn't someone continue to own it and use it? It does no-one any harm, after all, so why complain about it and kick up such a storm in a tea cup? (no offence)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    GNR'S OWN LISTS RE WHAT ICANN AND ICANN'T REGISTER
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @02:24PM (#6648)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    (SOURCE: BulkRegister)


    .Name reserved domains [page title]


    All second-level domain names (eg. johndoe.name, janedoe.name) are reserved.


    The following strings have been reserved by ICANN and cannot be used as either the second-level or the third-level component of a .NAME domain name or .NAME email address:

    aso
    dnso
    icann
    internic
    pso
    afrinic
    apnic
    arin
    example
    gtld-servers
    iad
    iana
    iana-servers
    iesg
    ietf
    irtf
    istf
    lacnic
    latnic
    rfc-editor
    ripe
    root-servers


    The following strings have been reserved by the Registry and cannot be used as the second-level component of a .NAME domain name or .NAME email address:


    celebrity
    cert
    certificate
    directory
    dns
    dotname
    famous
    findyour
    findyourfamily
    findyourname
    finger
    ftp
    getyour
    getyourname
    gopher
    hostmaster
    imap
    ldap
    login
    myname
    namedomain
    nameregistry
    nntp
    no1
    ntp
    pop
    pop3
    registeryour
    registeryourname
    registry
    scp
    security
    smtp
    snmp
    telnet
    thefamous
    thenamedomain
    thenameregistry
    yourname
    zone
    global
    globalregistry
    gnr
    theglobal
    theglobalname
    theglobalnameregistry
    theglobalregistry


    The following strings have been reserved by the Registry and cannot be used as the third-level component of a .NAME domain name or .NAME email address:


    dir
    directory
    email
    genealogy
    http
    mail
    mx
    mx[followed by a number from 0 to 100] ([0-10] and [11-100])
    ns
    ns[followed by a number from 0 to 100] ([0-10] and [11-100])
    wap
    www
    www[followed by a number from 0 to 100] ([0-10] and [11-100])
    administrator
    hostmaster
    postmaster
    complaints
    mailer-daemon
    abuse
    root
    webmaster
    infomaster


    All single character second-level domains (eg. jane.z.name) are reserved.


    All two character second-level domains (eg. joe.mr.name) are reserved.


    All second-level domains comprised of just numbers and hyphens (eg. joe.123.name, john.9-1-1.name) are reserved.


    All second-level or third-level domains with hyphens in the 3rd and 4th positions (eg. jane-john.doe.name) are reserved.


    The following absolute domain names are not available for registration


    Jesus.Christ.name
    Santa.Claus.name


    -------------------------------------------------


    Quite clearly, then, one be be forgiven for the assumption of believing that as certain generic names are not allowed to be registered, conversely, therefore, others generic names ARE allowable to be registered!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY'S OWN NEWS ITEM ON THEIR SITE
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @02:30PM (#6649)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    1

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .N
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @03:25PM (#6655)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Wow, this is really becoming a popular discussion thread!

    Please excuse my many postings, they are mainly simply necessary and measured responses to points raised or criticism unfairly given.

    Just one other point Ben - you make a big play on whether .NAMEs link to sites, well NONE of mine do...

    Why? Because my Registrar has messed up and still not provided any of their clients with that facility yet, despite repeated promises otherwise!

    Otherwise, I would be COURTESY linking many of my .NAME domains to people's and organisation's website FREE OF CHARGE, whether or not they chose to purchase the domain from myself for $500 (or $250 if they're a registered charity or not-for-profit group.)

    Keep up the good work, Ben!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @05:04PM (#6666)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Re Adrian Paul MILES 220 21 ad2000d@xxxxxxxx.uk Wolverhampton WV1 4AS - - United Kingdom

    Your lists are incorrect to a significant degree regarding my (alleged) non-conforming and conforming .NAMEs, as of a month or so ago...

    Please remember: People's official aliases and titles are allowable as eligible .NAMEs;

    Please also remember: I am a domain name reseller (hence my registrar being BulkRegister) and therefore a lot of these .NAMEs have been registered as gifts for, on behalf of, other people and they are not for my own use.

    To save taking up forum space, I have e-mailed you the amendments/corrections privately to your e-mail account at the Law School.

    Please amend the incorrect data as soon as possible, as some people might rely on it to not only for judgments, but also to take unnecessary arbitration or legal action against myself, and others.

    Many thanks.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Co
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02 2002, @07:49AM (#6734)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    A Reply to .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions
    original article by Ben Edelman
    Harvard University

    reply by Adrian Paul Miles
    ANNO DOMINI 2000

    (part 1)

    --- my first part of my fuller response has been sent to the Editors of ICANNWatch and will therefore hopefully be published shortly ---
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE .NAME ISSUE!
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06 2002, @09:12PM (#6919)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    In the interests of future Internet usage, if ICANN and/or GNR insist that .NAME is only meant for firstname.lastname.NAME or lastname.firstname.NAME, then I will do the following:

      (i) Insist that both ICANN and GNR clarify their position publicly

    (ii) Depending upon their response, I will ask my Registrar to cancel any non-personal .NAMEs (with the exception of those .NAMEs beginning with official titles, such as "Sir", or "Prince", and also those .NAMEs with a genuinely useful and laudable charitable use)

    (iii) I will naturally expect my Registrar to refund me my BulkRegister .NAME Registration Charges, as well as all of my associated Application Fees for any non-conforming .NAMEs I was led to believe were allowable by GNR's website (including those I had to pay even where my .NAME Applications were unsuccessful)

    (iv) I would insist GNR provided some form of compensation for clearly misleading visitors to their site on .NAME eligibility and allowable .NAME domains (by the way, I have kept all evidence of this, in case they suddenly remove those comments)

    (v) I hope this would pave the way for other Registrars and non-conforming .NAME holders to follow suit and restore some credibility to the .NAME platform (assuming both ICANN and GNR insist upon a stricter interpretation of the .NAME concept)


    Yours,

    Ady Miles
    ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS
    http://www.ad2000d.com/.NAME/
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    No More Controversial Famous Name Registrations
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08 2002, @01:45PM (#7012)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    A number of people have questioned the integrity of my famous name registratrions.

    As a Christian, I do my utmost to avoud unnecessary controversy and offence, so I have decided to offer ALL famous names and domain names incorporating trademarks of any kind FREE OF CHARGE to their rightful owners.

    If you don't believe me, check out my website.

    Perhaps this will pacify a few dissenting voices on this issue.

    Regards,

    Ady Miles
    ANNO DOMINI 2000
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    GET A DOT NAME FOR YOURSELF
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday July 27 2002, @10:38PM (#8121)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Wanna Buy a New .Name?
    Lowest Price for .Name Domains
    * Valuable Dot Names for Sale *
    THE.DOT.NAME
    Interest:
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday May 31 2002, @07:28AM (#6607)
    User #2810 Info
    Actually 241 if one counts those names Ben didn't at first explicitly flag as non-conforming. It's so heartwarming to see a local (to ICANNWatch, recently) lad make the top 5 [snif].

    Concerned that that number might be misleading and that it might include his actual name, I did a quick scan of Adrian's 241 names looking for his own name in some variant or another. Here's the count on the number of times each of his three known names show up within his registered .names, what those names are, and whether or not Ben explicitly flagged them as nonconforming:

    Adrian 0

    Paul 6
    sir.jamespaulmccartney.name (flagged)
    sir.james-paul-mccartney.name(flagged)
    sir.paulmccartney.name (flagged)
    sir.paul-mccartney.name (flagged)
    sirjames.paulmccartney.name (not flagged)
    sirjamespaul.mccartney.name (not flagged)

    Miles 2
    the.miles.name (flagged)
    a.miles.name (not flagged)

    And just for grins and because I have too much time on my hands (NOT!), I thought he might appear elsewhere in .name so I did WHOIS queries on:

    adrian.miles.name (still available)
    paul.miles.name (still available)
    adrian-paul.miles.name (still available)
    adrianpaul.miles.name (still available)
    adrian.paul-miles.name (still available)
    sir.adrian-paul-miles.name (still available)

    Perhaps his Knighthood is lost in the mails. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday May 31 2002, @07:32AM (#6608)
    User #2810 Info
    Could you provide a pointer to where it says the losing party will pay the cost? I'm not doubting you, I'd just like to see it. Assuming there is such, I can imagine various of these bad actors saying sorry, I'm broke, I spent all my money on dumbass domain names. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31 2002, @01:15PM (#6638)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Please remember: A .NAME does NOT have to be your ACTUAL name
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re AOL v Adrian Paul Miles NAF UDRP Case Decision
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @03:50PM (#6820)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    1

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: arbitration decisions & what not
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @12:53PM (#6863)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Not at all.

    We WILL win.

    Justice WILL be done.

    AOL, the Panelists and the NAF will be exposed for the corporate bunging and trademark boot-licking they are doing every day of every week of every month for years...

    It is stop someone had the courage to put a STOP to it.

    I am that man.

    AOL is Goliath; I am David.

    They are all going to lose, despite being bigger than me!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    CYBERSQUATTER?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06 2002, @08:38PM (#6917)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    LET'S SAY WHAT THE US COURTS HAVE TO SAY ON THAT ONE MR ANONYMOUS SLANDERER -

    UNDER THE A.C.P.A, I AM CLEARLY NOT.

    AU 'VOIR!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08 2002, @09:23PM (#7017)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    No comment. You're not worthy of a response.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • 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