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 Alternative Actions for Remaining Bogus Sunrise .INFO Registrations
    posted by michael on Sunday September 22 2002, @04:18PM

    DomeBase writes "The .INFO roll-out process is being watched as a possible model for future generic top level extension roll-outs, so it probably will have importance beyond just the .INFO extension. One of the remaining concerns from the .INFO roll-out is the status of remaining names with bogus trademark information that were registered during the Sunrise period. I have summarized ten alternative actions that could be taken to address this issue in a poll at DomainState.com and am also posting them at ICANNWatch.org for feedback. I will write up the results of the poll and feedback and send them to the .INFO registry (Afilias) for consideration. There is no guarantee that this will make any difference, but there are some reasons to think that it might. Please be professional in any comments you make. Thank you."



    BACKGROUND

    When .INFO domain names were first introduced in 2001, people with trademarks were given first opportunity to register trademarked names in a "Sunrise period." The Sunrise period came before a "Land Rush" (LR) wherein the general public could register names in a "round robin" process. However, some people registered names during the Sunrise period with bogus trademark information. The registry challenged many bogus Sunrise registrations and released them to the public in "Land Rush 2" (LR2) in 2002 using a round robin process.

    The round robin worked as follows. First, people submitted requests to registrars. Second, the order of requests within each registrar's list was randomized. Third, registration went around in a circle to each registrar, entering the first name from each list. If a name was available, the request was registered; if a name was already taken, the request was rejected. This cycle was repeated until all requests were processed. Requests in shorter registrar lists had a greater chance of success. Some registrar lists were closed to the public, at least via the internet.

    Some bogus Sunrise registrations have not yet been challenged. Some are locked and seem to be in limbo. Others show changes in ownership in the WHOIS. It is not clear what is happening to them. For those names that are genuinely trademarked by someone other than the current registrant, the person with a genuine trademark can pursue the name through the UDRP process.

    ALTERNATIVES FOR VOTING

    Please vote for each of the following alternatives that you would find acceptable. You can check more than one and then vote. Multiple votes give a better sense of relative ranking. I have tried to summarize key alternatives and arguments. They do not necessarily represent my views. Your comments are also welcome in the thread. I did not include a paid lottery because of the .BIZ lawsuit.

    1. NO SPECIAL ACTION: There is no need for special action because people with genuine trademark claims can use UDRP to get trademarked names taken by bogus registrations and no one else has any greater right to other names than the current registrants.

    2. LR3 LIKE LR2: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed in a LR3 like LR2.

    3. LR3 WITHOUT CLOSED LISTS: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed in LR3 like LR2, except that all participating registrars must allow public requests via internet.

    4. LR3 WITH EQUAL LENGTH LISTS: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed in LR3 like LR2, except that all registrar list lengths should be equalized by adding random blanks to shorter lists. (credit to member "fairness" on ICANN forum for this idea)

    5. FREE RANDOM DRAW: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed through a random drawing with no charge for submission. Names go to those who submit the most requests and are lucky. One could try to limit the number of requests by person, but this may be difficult to enforce.

    6. AUCTION: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and auctioned by the registry or registrars. Names go to those who pay the most. Extra value accrues to registry or registrars.

    7. ANNOUNCED FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVE: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed at an announced time on a first-come, first-serve basis. Names go to those with the most rapid connections. The server may crash.

    8. UNANNOUNCED FIRST-COME FIRST-SERVE: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed at an unannounced time on a first-come, first-serve basis. Names go to those who check frequently, have insider information, or are just lucky.

    9. LR3 FOR LR1 PARTICIPANTS ONLY: Remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed in LR3 like LR2, except that only people with documented, non-refunded, paid requests for those same names during LR1 can participate for those names in LR3. Names go to those who originally lost money due to bogus registrations. May be tough to administer.

    10. PROTOTYPE WEBSITE CONTEST: To help increase the number of working .INFO websites, the remaining bogus Sunrise names should be challenged and distributed based on a peer-reviewed contest evaluating usefulness of working prototype websites developed and submitted by applicants. Names go to people who have demonstrated commitment to providing good information content at the name.

    author: Robert Connor ("DomeBase" at DomainState.com)
    source: DomainState.com

     
      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  
  • ICANNWatch.org
  • DomainState.com
  • ICANNWatch.org
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Alternative Actions for Remaining Bogus Sunrise .INFO Registrations | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 18 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: Alternative Actions for Remaining Bogus Sunris
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday September 23 2002, @06:30AM (#9334)
    User #2810 Info
    The forums were down for awhile, they're back now. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Unbelievable!! How biased is this poll going
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday September 23 2002, @06:45AM (#9335)
    User #2810 Info
    The poll isn't just for speculators. I voted and I'm not a speculator. As most of the interest in .info was (and probably remains) by speculators and defensive registrations, if those are the majority of those answering the poll, while it might not be scientific, it makes sense.

    I pointed out here when .info first announced LR2 that their timeline wouldn't come close to allowing for them to deal with all the disputed names. It was a face saving exercise. They probably won't do another one without more bad press. Even with bad press they probably won't. ICANN has its renewed MoU so no-one cares about optics. The insider dealing at .info will continue regardless, it is a culture of corruption and will likely remain so. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Unbelievable!! How biased is this poll going
    by DomeBase on Monday September 23 2002, @11:24AM (#9340)
    User #2993 Info
    ouch... what would you recommend?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Oh, great go to a
    by DomeBase on Monday September 23 2002, @04:57PM (#9345)
    User #2993 Info
    I was rejected by the QVC show. They said that they "have their standards for quality" and thus "no interest in the likes of me." Ah well, very demoralizing.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply 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