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
  • MŁller-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, @04:55AM

    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

    Brock Meeks Pulls No Punches | CPSR Plan for ICANN Reform: Back to the White Paper  >

     

     
      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 | Login/Create an Account | Top | 185 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them.
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @10:43AM (#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
    Didn't actually break first on ICANNwatch
    by BenEdelman on Friday May 31, @11:03AM (#6625)
    User #3219 Info | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman
    For whatever it's worth, I sent the link first to my "preferred" list of reporters (basically, those who have previously covered my recent work); second, to those who have filled out the "Notify me of major updates and additions to this page" form at the bottom of most of my recent projects; third to the GA; fourth to ICANNwatch; fifth to greplaw.

    But, yes, Newsbytes does (did!) a truly great job of turning around these stories. Brian McWilliams is one of the best reporters I know -- thorough, accurate, fair, and quick -- and it's sad to see him go. But I'm sure we'll see more of him soon.

    (Plus, when Newsbytes got shut down earlier this afternoon, all deep links to their articles stopped working. Not helpful.)
    Re: Didn't actually break first on ICANNwatch
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @11:53AM (#6631)
    User #2810 Info
    In fact the Newsbytes link as given above now just does a delayed redirect to WP TechNews with no sign of the story. Nor does it appear where one might think: here, not yet anyway. -g
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:34AM (#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?
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:33PM (#6644)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I cannot comment on GNR so-called Agreement with ICANN, that is not my responsibility.

    I would, however, be very interested to see a copy of it.

    I certainly haven't spent thousands of English pounds of my and my friends' money IN GOOD FAITH, just to be told "au revoir" to my domain names!
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by PeterBarron on Friday May 31, @12:54PM (#6645)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Perhaps you've not spent thousands of pounds to be told "au revior" to your names, but that's exactly what's going to happen.

    I just heard from GNR's legal department on my complaint.

    You should have spent the money on a clue.

    ++Peter
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @01:09PM (#6647)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    oh really? very funny. funny how neither you nor they have spoken to me about it! mind you, I have spoken to them myself recently and they told me quite the opposite in fact!!

    Get a life Peter.
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by PeterBarron on Friday May 31, @02:15PM (#6652)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Of course, they'd certainly call you immediately if they were planning action against you. I must have imagined the conversation I had with them. Enjoy your weekend!

    ++Peter
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @02:30PM (#6656)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I will - thank you - it is the Queen's fiftieth anniversary of Her Reign, so we have public Bank Holidays on Monday AND Tuesday, so it's a long weekend of street parties and celebrations!!

    BTW I am offering ALL of my Royal .NAMEs to the Queen and the British Royal Family FREE OF CHARGE as gift and mark of respect and submission as a loyal subject to her fair and righteous reign as my Sovereign Queen. She is a credit to her country and generation....
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @02:36PM (#6659)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    thanks for adding that, Peter - ever seen a pscyhiatrist? it's just you seem a two have a double personality disorder and jealousy complex!
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by PeterBarron on Friday May 31, @05:20PM (#6673)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    No, never have.

    But I guess you have no constructive argument, if you have to resort to name calling and personal attacks.

    ++Peter
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:25AM (#6689)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Moi???
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by PeterBarron on Saturday June 01, @12:19PM (#6697)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Exactly. If you had an argument you'd make it. I look forward to speaking with GNR again on Monday. Last I heard, they were planning on doing a mass challenge, much like Afilias did. Now, anyone will tell you that Afilias's mass challenge was a fiasco (Afiliasco?), but in this case, I'll take what I can get, since it means that you'll surely be first.

    If you'd just not said anything on here, you'd probably have gotten away with it! But you pissed off too many people. Life is rough that way.

    ++Peter
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @12:52AM (#6716)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I have already given SOME of my arguments, but I am planning to publish A FULL STATEMENT on .NAME, GNR, Registrars, Trademarks, Famous Names and CyberSquatting.

    Ben has very kindly and graciously offered to either quote or link to this statement as soon as I have finished it, in deference to his considerable references to many of the .NAMEs that I (and my friends) currently own.

    In the meantime, I cannot continue to contribute to to this discussion board, as it is mentally fatiguing me replying to so many messages every day!

    I hope you will appreciate my Statement on all these things when you eventually read it. I don't expect you to agree with all I have to say, but a discussion forum is no place to post an extensive thesis on domain name registration, usage, transfer and resale!!
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:16PM (#6774)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    No, wrong again, it simply demonstrates my courteous manner and wish to respond as quickly as possibl to incorrect, unfair and defamatory statements!

    (*sighs*) (yet again)

    :?/
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @04:06PM (#6667)
    User #2810 Info
    A copy of the agreement can be found here. Specifically, Appendix L 3. Reservation states:
    3. Reservation

    Registry Operator reserves the right to transfer or cancel any Registered Name or SLD e-mail (a) for violations of the Registry Agreement and its Appendices...
    And that click-thru agreement you sailed past on your way to fame and fortune? Says in so many words that you can't sue them and win. Buh.Bye.adrian. -g


    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:30AM (#6692)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    i honestly think i would win, buit litigation is not the answer right now.

    they are welcome to cancel my domains, so long as they also compensate my costs of registration and prove they are invalid through the UDRP or ERDRP Forums; this is the only clear and proven procedure for doing this. No registrar could get away with cancelling so many domains without riskign either bankruptcy or litigation.
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by PeterBarron on Saturday June 01, @12:21PM (#6698)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Really? Then I guess Afilias is in trouble for their mass challenge? The GNR representative that I spoke with said that they're going to model their challenge after Afilias's.

    So glad to see you in the crosshairs.

    ++Peter
    Re: .name was not designed as an open tld
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:53PM (#6711)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    As I recall, the Affilias' challenge was against those who gave invalid or false information to the Registry - fraudulent registrations, in fact.

    I do not personally see any real comparison to what I, and many others, have done... I know my motivation, but I cannot - of course- also speak for theirs!
    Re: fnord- question
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Saturday June 01, @04:43AM (#6683)
    User #2810 Info
    The policy hasn't changed SFAIK. Certainly the other open TLDs, both legacy and new, none doing so well at the moment, would have a beef with ICANN if they gained another direct competitor. GNR can't unilaterally change the agreement, they'd need ICANN's OK, and ICANN is unlikely to give that OK for the above reason. ICANN has also taken flak for allowing some of those it OK'ed for new TLDs to later change what was in their applications, as this was unfair to applicants who were turned down. If ICANN now allowed GNR to open itself up as another undifferentiated TLD, they'd take more flak from that quarter as well.

    While the policy does say that GNR won't screen for appropriateness, it also says that GNR can cancel any registration it wants to. So, now that GNR is aware that Adrian et al aren't following the rules they agreed to follow when they accepted the Registration Agreement, they are free to cancel their registrations.

    In Adrian's case, he registered bulk.register.name, for example, through bulkregister (I haven't checked to see if he used them exclusively, though some of his other names also appear on Ben's incompletely published list of bulkregister registered names). Here is the bulkregister registration agreement. While it doesn't have clauses specific to .name (frankly, quite a bit of the bulkregister site seems outdated, not necessarily inaccurate, but stale), Adrian is clearly in breech of various of the general provisions. He also has claimed more recently here that he is a bulkregister reseller. While I doubt that, if he is, he is also clearly in breech of various of those clauses to do with resellers. He has breeched many of the registration requirements of both GNR and bulkregister. By his acceptance of the GNR and bulkregister agreements (you can't register without accepting the clickwrap agreement), he has bound himself to their rules. Both parties' rules allow them to cancel any registration for pretty much any reason, certainly for what Adrian has done. And the save harmless clauses mean that Adrian can't successfully sue them. So the litmus test now is whether either party (and if so, which) will enforce those agreements. -g

    Re: fnord- question
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:42AM (#6696)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    For the umpteenth time .NAME is NOT just intended for personal names - when will people get this - it is also for pseudonyms, aliases, fictional characters and trademarks.
    Re: fnord- question
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Saturday June 01, @05:26PM (#6705)
    User #2810 Info
    So (for just one example category) are the many permutations of living and non-living Beatles names you have registered your pseudonyms, aliases, fictional characters or trademarks?

    This whole thread is getting extremely boring, even for me, but I'd like to reiterate a point. How expensive would it be for GNR to have had software in place, or even to put it in place now, that parses for someone using 'the' as a 3LD, or someone dinging their credit card for 241 .names (how many of us can claim to 'commonly' be known by 241 names, it's absurd), and then waking up a human to have a closer look (yes, I'm aware that some of this would have to be done at the registrar level). If they then see that the same person claims to commonly be known by each and all of the last names of McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr, and for all I know, Best, one needn't be employing rocket scientists to figure out that something is probably amiss.

    Instead, they've taken Adrian's money, and they will now probably seize the names, but by having to go through at least as much time and effort (probably more, and with some loss of reputation, for the registrar, the registry, and ICANN) as if they'd dealt with it in the first place, so no-one really wins. I'm still trying to decide who the bigger dumbass is here, Adrian, GNR, or ICANN. -g

    Re: fnord- question
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:42PM (#6777)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    FNORD! You're forgetting three important points!

    (i) BulkRegister, and most other registrars, sell domain names to resellers and not directly to consumers and individuals.

    (ii) If you actually bothered to check ANY of my .NAME registration information, in regard to these domains, you would have seen with your own eyes that these particular .NAMEs have ALREADY been designated as belong to their ultimate rightful owners and NOT ME.

    (iii) My client's information and that of any recipient of a free or at-cost gift from myself is nobody else's business other than their's and mine.

    Got it now?

    So, there you go, I am NOT a CyberSquatter and neither ICANN, GNR, nor anyone else would be able to wrest these domain names from my possession, other than their ultimate rightful owners, who have/are being offered them either FREE OF CHARGE, or AT COST (including only out-of-pocket expenses, which is clearly allowable under ICANN's UDRP Rules.)

    I suggest you check your facts better before ranting and raving against me.

    I do, however, basically agree with your criticism of ICANN and GNR's failure to properly oversee and administer the .NAME domain to date.

    However, from my own dealings with the Global Names Registry here in the UK, they seem an otherwise forward-thinking, professional and intelligent outfit and - unlike ICANN - are willing to discuss their policies and deal with any issues raised.

    Please don't get too disillusioned over .NAME - I really do think this will all work out for everyone's good over the coming months and years...

    ...I promise to do my part to help reform .NAME policy to make it fairer, clearer and more useful to the Internet Community as a whole!
    Re: fnord- question
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Monday June 03, @12:49AM (#6780)
    User #2810 Info
    Adrian writes
    (i) BulkRegister, and most other registrars, sell domain names to resellers and not directly to consumers and individuals.
    This is incorrect.
    (ii) If you actually bothered to check ANY of my .NAME registration information, in regard to these domains, you would have seen with your own eyes that these particular .NAMEs have ALREADY been designated as belong to their ultimate rightful owners and NOT ME.
    I'm glad that you admit that you are not their rightful owner, perhaps we are getting somewhere. I did check some of your registrations, as I already gave the example of bulk.register.com which seems to be their info but is your email address as the contact. Ditto for sir.jamespaulmccartney.name, though I think it unlikely that his, or anyone's but the operator's, phone number is +0.0000000000. I think it more likely you entered that other information to make it appear at a cursory glance that the domains are owned by the rightful parties. If you truly wanted their info in there you'd put their email contact addresses as well. Of course that might awaken them to the fact they're being squatted on. In other cases such as the.wtc.name it is all your contact info. That is because there is no rightful party, and that includes you.
    (iii) My client's information and that of any recipient of a free or at-cost gift from myself is nobody else's business other than their's and mine.
    I've already tried to answer that. If you post in public, as you did here touting your names, expect a response. So is Paul McCartney your client? Or are you just commonly known by that name? Note that there is a difference between AKA and 'commonly known as'. If you are commonly known by the names of each of the Beatles, and some members of their families, then your friends aren't just out the money they lent you, they're as loopy as you are.

    Continuing along, are Duran Duran or The WTC your clients? If not, are you commonly known by those names? We know the answer to all is NO. And is the Queen your client, or are you just commonly known by that name? We know at least the first part of that is false.

    (including only out-of-pocket expenses, which is clearly allowable under ICANN's UDRP Rules.)
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, $500 per name is not reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. All the panelist(s) will have to do is look for actual evidence of such expenditures and the jig is up.
    I suggest you check your facts better before ranting and raving against me.
    I suggest you point out any of my 'facts' which are incorrect, though I think you would be better served worrying about your own reputation. Sooner or later the UK media may pick up on this story about you trying to get listed in the Guinness Book of records as the world's biggest dumbass. -g

    Re: fnord- question
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @11:57AM (#6864)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I have said all I want to say on this issue here, but you won't accept my honesty and genuiness.

    That is YOUR problem, not mine!
    Re: fnord- question
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:19PM (#6776)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You are entitled to your strange views. I believe in the UDRP (though, it must be said, certainly not some of the Arbitration Panel decisions.)

    I also believe that common-sense and non-legaslism on the issue of .NAME eligibility will prevail regarding the ERDRP also... In fact, I intend to help make sure it does!
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @01:07PM (#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)
    GNR'S OWN LISTS RE WHAT ICANN AND ICANN'T REGISTER
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @01:24PM (#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!
    curiouser.curiouser.name
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @03:47PM (#6665)
    User #2810 Info
    ANNODOMINI2000 writes:

    (SOURCE: BulkRegister) [...] mucho snippage.
    Welly welly well, look at what we have here. Acting on an hunch that Adrian is determined to be caught and gives us clues in all his verbiage, on those rare occasions when he isn't outright admitting to breaking the rules, I thought I'd try WHOIS bulk.register.name:

    Domain Name: bulk.register.name
    Sponsoring Registrar: BulkRegister.com
    Domain Status: ok
    Registrant ID: CT:AP281
    Registrant Organization: AD 2000 D . COM
    Registrant Name: Adrian Paul MILES
    Registrant Address: c/o 78 Bright Street, Whitmore Reans,
    Registrant City: Wolverhampton WV1 4AS
    Registrant State/Province: -
    Registrant Country: UNITED KINGDOM
    Registrant Postal Code: -
    Admin ID: CT:BR332
    Admin Organization: Bulk Register
    Admin Name: BULK REGISTER
    Admin Address: 10 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1500
    Admin City: Baltimore
    Admin State/Province: MD
    Admin Country: UNITED STATES
    Admin Postal Code: 21202
    Admin Phone Number: +1.8004761879
    Admin Email: ad2000d@yahoo.co.uk
    Tech ID: CT:BR332
    Tech Organization: Bulk Register
    Tech Name: BULK REGISTER
    Tech Address: 10 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1500
    Tech City: Baltimore
    Tech State/Province: MD
    Tech Country: UNITED STATES
    Tech Postal Code: 21202
    Tech Phone Number: +1.8004761879
    Tech Email: ad2000d@yahoo.co.uk
    Billing ID: CT:BR332
    Billing Organization: Bulk Register
    Billing Name: BULK REGISTER
    Billing Address: 10 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1500
    Billing City: Baltimore
    Billing State/Province: MD
    Billing Country: UNITED STATES
    Billing Postal Code: 21202
    Billing Phone Number: +1.8004761879
    Billing Email: ad2000d@yahoo.co.uk
    Name Server: ns3.hostsvr.com
    Name Server: ns4.hostsvr.com
    Created On: 2002-03-08
    Expires On: 2003-03-12
    Updated On: 2002-03-08

    All bulkregister, apparently including the admin, tech and billing contact ID of CT:BR332 (run that handle thru the .name WHOIS and you get bulkregister), and including the name servers, but perhaps not including the email addy. Sooo, either bulkregister is in on this with Adrian, or he might soon be having some trouble with his registrar as well. -g

    Re: curiouser.curiouser.name
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @04:07PM (#6668)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    ... or, three, Adrian has registerd to provide a courtesy link to information about Bulk Register's services!

    LOL - missed again sucker!
    Re: curiouser.curiouser.name
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @04:26PM (#6670)
    User #2810 Info
    Sorry Adrian. This claim that you've registered someone's trademarked name(s) so as to provide a courtesy link to them, even if you get around to doing it, won't get you anywhere under the UDRP.

    The same argument has been tried by others for quite some time, and a number of times, and even with lawyers arguing for them, and the panelists don't buy it. Did bulkregister, or Sir Paul McCartney, or AIM, or whomever, authorize you to act on their behalf or as their agent? If no, then you're gone. And you've already had one name taken away by NAF, so they can also now show a pattern of behavior. You're really gone. The panelists will say, OK, seeing as you're so charitable and full of courtesy, we'll just give the complainant(s) the name(s) and be done with it. That's if GNR doesn't just cancel your registrations in the meantime. Sorry kid, you're a textbook case on how not to do it. -g

    Re: curiouser.curiouser.name
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:26AM (#6690)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    you're entitle to your opinions
    Re: Right on fnord
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:27AM (#6691)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I guess you'll be very surprise when (sorry, if) I win then?
    Re: Right on fnord
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:55PM (#6712)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Well, the UDRP Panel decision is due TOMORROW and won't be officially announced by the NAF until Thursday, June 6th, so I think you have you're wired crossed with the earlier ERDRP Case which I conceded on grounds of technical ineligibility...

    Have a good weekend!
    Re: GNR'S OWN LISTS RE WHAT ICANN AND ICANN'T REGI
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @02:15PM (#6653)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Not idiotic, oh no, just logical and common-sense - please don't insult my intelligence in future, thank you.

    Just for the record, IF either GNR, ICANN - or anyone else - tried to cancel ANY of my domain names (other than through the correct ERDRP or UDRP Procedures), I would not hesitate in suing them in the High Courts of England.
    Re: GNR'S OWN LISTS RE WHAT ICANN AND ICANN'T REGI
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @03:00PM (#6662)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Pray, tell me, which ones are you referring to as in violation of the UDRP?

    None of them do.

    True, some of them might, were I a cybersquatter as defined by the UDRP, but I am not, so they do not.

    End of discussion.

    I doubt it somehow though - this guy's got a bone to pick and he's not letting go!
    GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY'S OWN NEWS ITEM ON THEIR SITE
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @01:30PM (#6649)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    FOOD, GLORIOUS FOOD - WHY TV'S TOP CHEFS ARE FUELING A BOOM FOR GASTRONOMIC NAMES
    Introducing Cappuccino, Brie, and Chili - New Internet Domain Registry Reveals Fashion for Nourishing Names


    London - March 21, 2002 -- The full impact TVís celebrity chefs have over popular culture is revealed today - by an explosion in interest for food-based names.


    First names, including Gouda, Almond, Cappuccino and Iceberg are among the more unusual to have been registered for a .name - the new Internet domain for indivi duals. To date, there have been more than 165,000 annual .name domain and email product registrations since the service launched in January this year.


    Experts believe the new trend in food names has been fueled by Americaís obsession with top TV chefs including Wolfgang Puck, Emeril Lagasse, Julia Child and Bobby Flay.


    "Fifty years ago, John and Mary often topped the popularity lists, but these da ys the need for individuality is making people increasingly turn to popular cult ure for help,Ē said Dr. David Lewis, a leading independent psychologist. ďOver the last few decades, for example, our appetite for all things food has created a clear evolution in what we call ourselves. The increasing availability of inte rnational foods and ingredients, used by todayís ubiquitous TV chef, has opened up a whole new world of names."


    "While traditional food names, such as Basil, Rosemary and Ginger still survive, the popularity for exotic foods means that some people are seeking to spice things up by opting for names such as Chilli, Fig, Pepper and Brie".


    The current fad for healthy living is revealed by the presence of a number of fruity names. Among those already registered for a .name include Apple, Peach, Clementine, and Berry. By contrast, those who prefer cocktails have opted for names such as Wine, Sherry and Champagne.


    Other popular food names include Veal, Ham, Corn, Cheddar and Rice, while a passion for pastry has been recorded by two people who have registered the first names Filo and Puff.


    Andrew Tsai, CEO of Global Name Registry, the licence-holder of .name, says tha t the food fad is only one of the more interesting trends to emerge from the database of registered names.


    "We have also identified an upsurge in national pride, illustrated by names such as China, French, American, Swiss, Belgian, English, Brazil, Irish and even Morocco," said Mr. Tsai. "There is also a love for the natural world emerging with names such as Sea, Ocean, Ice and Snow."


    About Global Name Registry


    Global Name Registry was selected by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in November 2000 to develop, administer and market .name, the only top-level domain reserved exclusively for individuals.


    Headquartered in London, The Global Name Registry, Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GNR Limited, a company founded in 1999 to provide personalised communication services. GNR Limited's investors include Carlyle Europe Venture Partners, L.P., Northzone Ventures AS, and Four Seasons Venture AS.


    With extensive experience in technology infrastructure, networking, e-commerce, and security, GNR Limited intends to use the .name top-level domain as a global platform for digital identity services.


    The .name products can only be purchased through ICANN-accredited registrars. An up-to-date list of Official Providers of the .name products can be found on the Global Name Registry website at www.name.


    ###


    Notes to Editors:


    - The first .name went live on the Internet on 15th January 2002. Registration periods will occur every week from 19th March until registration is available in real-time on 15th May 2002...


    - Disputes regarding .name registrations may be filed under relevant .name dispute resolution policies...


    - Unlike existing and new top-level domains, Global Name Registry is positioning .name as a catalyst for new services and applications designed for personal communications.


    - The .name address can be used as a web site and email address today, but will ultimately be used as a unique identifier on any Internet-enabled device.


    - The .name top-level domain will evolve into a digital repository for information and a digital platform for e-commerce transactions.


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


    What was all that about .NAME bring only for personal names and non-commercial again?

    Re: 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .N
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @02:25PM (#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!
    Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @04:04PM (#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.
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday May 31, @04:29PM (#6671)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Do you have the permission of any of those other people on whose behalf you supposedly registered the domains?
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:40AM (#6695)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I may do, or I may not, but that is none of your business. Why not mind your own business instead for a change, instead of meddling in others matters that are not your business to interfere with.
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by PeterBarron on Saturday June 01, @12:22PM (#6699)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Oh, sounds like someone hit a nerve.

    ++Peter
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @12:00AM (#6714)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I accept MOST of my .NAME registrations were/are DEBATEABLE under GNR's POLICIES (from their own website and lists), but certainly NOT fraudulent, immoral, illegal or in "violation" of any so-called 'Rules.'
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:57PM (#6713)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    No "violation" has occurred - ineligibility, perhaps, but not violation.
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @06:56AM (#6735)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Technical ineligibility or non-compliance is NOT the same as "violation", unless this word has a different meaning in the USA to what is does here in the UK? (American English can really be rather different to British English!)
    ps violation not same an ineligibility or non-conf
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:00AM (#6736)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You seem to be regarding the apparent breaking oftechnical rules within internet domain names as a "violation" or "breaking (of) the law."

    However, internet domain name policy is NOT Law!
    Re: the effect is the same
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:02PM (#6770)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    As I thought, your definition of "a squatter" is most definitely not the same as either mine or ICANN's.

    I say again, I AM NOT A CYBERSQUATTER! (no, not even under the ACPA, which has no actual jurisdiction over me anyway!)

    Why not take a second or third look at the UDRP Rules to illustrate this?
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Saturday June 01, @04:49AM (#6684)
    User #2810 Info
    If you are a bulkregister reseller then you are bound by this agreement. You are clearly in breech of various of those clauses to do with what is required of resellers, so you can add that to your problems. If, OTOH, you are not a bulkregister authorized reseller (which I suspect is the case), then you are in trouble for claiming that you are. Adrian, you really should have quit when you were behind. -g
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:33AM (#6694)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What business it of yours of my relationship with either BR or GNR? It is none of your business. For the record, I am a full member of BR's programme and have been in close contact with GNR over non-personal .NAMEs, etc.
    Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Saturday June 01, @05:02PM (#6704)
    User #2810 Info
    1. ICANN and the IP folks set up a regimen to protect intellectual property. That is a policy decision. I am interested in ICANN policy, and involved to what little extent is allowed.

    2. ICANN unveiled some few new TLDs. Their success or failure will help to determine whether, and what sort of, new TLDs we might see in future. I'm generally in favor of more new TLDs, ergo...

    3. I think ICANN and its registries and registrars have done a generally miserable job with the new TLD rollouts. Your portfolio is a case in point, so I'll point it out.

    4. It is bad actors like you that put the rest of us at risk to lose our names, eg: Peter Frampton.

    5. You're the one who chose to post here in a public place. If you don't like the outcome, crawl back under your bed.

    6. It's kinda fun (though not very sporting) to watch you flail about.

    7. I don't much care for cybersquatters.

    8. I don't care at all for liars.

    9. I have too much time on my hands.

    10. I'm just naturally nosy. -g

    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @12:17AM (#6715)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    1. ICANN and the IP folks set up a regimen to protect intellectual property. That is a policy decision. I am interested in ICANN policy, and involved to what little extent is allowed.

    That is commendable. So do I.

    2. ICANN unveiled some few new TLDs. Their success or failure will help to determine whether, and what sort of, new TLDs we might see in future. I'm generally in favor of more new TLDs, ergo...

    So am I, but only with democratic consensus and also common-sense and clearer rules and trademark checks and balances at the time of registration. Do you agree?

    3. I think ICANN and its registries and registrars have done a generally miserable job with the new TLD rollouts. Your portfolio is a case in point, so I'll point it out.

    (i) I basically agree with you regarding ICANN's lack of oversight of the new roll-outs. Previous lessons have not be learnt and cybersquatting and fraudulent registrations abound yet again (I do not, however, include my own registrations in that statement!)

    (ii) That is entirely up to you, that is your choice

    4. It is bad actors like you that put the rest of us at risk to lose our names, eg: Peter Frampton.

    I totally disagree. Some doubtless has now registered your name, if you have not, due to you mentioning it. Thay is not my fault. You will need to challenge them through either the ERDRP or UDRP, if you can afford to... but that is one of my MAIN gripes the Arbitration routes - they are too expensive and prohibitive to the small businessman or less-wealthy or poor individual and therefore they have NO WAY of challenging false registrations without suing at Law, which is EVEN MORE expensive! This is not justice. It is unfair and prejudicial to democracy and fair Internet usage. Don't you agree?

    5. You're the one who chose to post here in a public place. If you don't like the outcome, crawl back under your bed.

    I am not too bothered by the discussion. I actually quite relish healthy and constructive debate and arguments, so long as there are no personal attacks, no defamation, no slander and no negative unconstructive destructive critisim just for the sake of it... Don't you agree?

    6. It's kinda fun (though not very sporting) to watch you flail about.

    Help!!! LOL I'm OK thanks. No probs that I can't deal with, other than ill health right now... How about you?

    7. I don't much care for cybersquatters.

    Neither do I. I am not one. Not by my definition of what one is, anyway. What is your definition please? Would you like to know mine as well?

    8. I don't care at all for liars.

    I am a Christian. I do not lie, unless I am protecting an innocent person or people from harm(see the Bible, Rahab and the spies story); I would be willing to lie about anything I knew if I was unfortunate enough to be captured by anti-Government forces such as Al Quaida, for example; or if someone with a loaded gun or other weapon asked me if people where inside a building... So I basically believe one should NOT lie, but that there are EXCEPTIONAL circumstance where LYING is aradoxically the RIGHT THING to do. As a practising Christian, my conscience is pretty clear on this subject, but I am far from perfect, like us all. What are you thoughts on this?

    9. I have too much time on my hands.

    So do I, but I am also very ill with CFS/ME and IBS which means mental and physical effort exhausts me and I am prone to getting moody and over-angry when I am confronted or challenged. I am working on this, with God's help. I just ask for other people's patience, as it is certainly not my strong point. Thanks.

    10. I'm just naturally nosy. -g

    I noticed!! LOL ;?)
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Sunday June 02, @03:10AM (#6729)
    User #2810 Info
    I don't have enough time on my hands right now to answer all your questions. But I have one of my own. What exceptional circumstances did you use to square your Christian conscience with registering bulk.register.name and lying about the data in the contact information (and thus the WHOIS)? -g
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:07AM (#6738)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Doh. Domain name resellers regularly use their customer's information to register domain names either for them, or on their behalf. This is not either illegal nor immoral.
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Sunday June 02, @09:20AM (#6745)
    User #2810 Info
    So now you're claiming that bulkregister is your customer? But, I thought you were their customer. Adrian, you are such a dissembler, I feel like Linda Blair trying to follow you dancing around the truth.

    They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, and you already tried to hide there with your WTC hands across the ocean and your hat's off to the Queen routines. Now you claim to be acting in accordance with Christian values while you lie your (dumb)ass off, which must put you in the basement of the last scoundrel refuge. Urggh, it's enough to bring on projectile vomiting. -g

    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:07PM (#6771)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Who say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel then?

    Whoever it was, or is, they were and are wrong; patriotism is simply a good, honest and virtuous thing to follow.... Any good citizen would agree, especially here in England.

    "...you claim to be acting in accordance with Christian values while you lie your (dumb)ass off, which must put you in the basement of the last scoundrel refuge. Urggh, it's enough to bring on projectile vomiting..."

    Being rather sick, I would imagine you would. You bring a lot of foul stuff from that end already!

    (No offence.)
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Monday June 03, @01:20AM (#6781)
    User #2810 Info
    Samuel Johnson first said the phrase. I wasn't previously aware his good English citizenship was questionable. -g
    Re: I don't give a ****
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @11:58AM (#6865)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I don't give a damn for peoples' fame or power, if they're comments are clearly illogical and/or stoopid!
    Re: Hypocritic Christian
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:05AM (#6737)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    No comment. You message is not worthy of a response.
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:08AM (#6739)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What a load of crap. Again, not really worthy of a response.
    Re: Someone should collect all of Adrian's respons
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @01:22PM (#6758)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    LOL ; ?O
    Re: Once again....
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @11:13PM (#6772)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    The same could be said of you - so you do sound just a tad hypocritical there, my friend (not.)

    Okay, well, there is SOME sense in what you are saying so I'm now posting all of my comments and reasonings at http://www.ad2000d.com/.NAME/

    Please refrain from slandering and defaming me, or I will be forced to get my fireman's cap on and dampen your "flames." LOL

    Thanks for the dialogue, Mr Anonymous-I'm-afraid-to-let-you-know-who-I-really-am-or-who-I-work-for (but no thanks for the unfair criticism and aggressive statements.)

    Au 'voir!
    Re: Top ten reasons why it is my business
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:12AM (#6740)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    This message is malicious, abusive and defamatory and will doubtless be deleted within the next day or so.

    You are obviously either evil, very sad or just very jealous.
    Re: Speculating of the Royal Family?!?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @07:14AM (#6741)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Hello?? The Royal Family names have been offered totally FREE OF CHARGE in commemoration of the Queen's 50th Anniversary of Her Royal Reign...

    What are some of you guys on?!?

    (*sigh*)
    Re: Inaccurate and a out-of-date Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:31AM (#6693)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    *sigh*

    no, i'm not scared at all!
    What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Co
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @06:49AM (#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 ---
    Re: What more can you say
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @01:19PM (#6757)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You don't know how wrong you are!

    Just for the record, here is the first part of my three part response...

    ...If you can't be positive and constructive and stop slandering and defaming me (which is just a tad immoral and also illegal, I should add!), please kindly just SHUT UP and talk about subjects you actually know something major about... if there are any, that is...

    ENJOY!

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Re: What more can you say
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @01:26PM (#6759)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/

    A Reply to .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions

    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)

    Overview

    In 2000-2002, the ICANN New TLD Program co-ordinated the introduction of seven new top-level domains to the Internet's Domain Name System. Among these new TLDs was .NAME, a namespace intended, according to an appendix to its agreements with ICANN, to be used for "personal name registrations" of the form JOHN.DOE.NAME.

    It is true that .NAME was initially only intended for "personal name registrations", such as "JOHN.SMITH.NAME."

    On a lighter note, I personally do not believe your use of "JOHN.DOE.NAME" is a good example, as it would most likely refer to nobody in particular who was actually already dead. It would therefore not currently be eligible for official and indisputable registration as a .NAME. However, I guess this is really just yet another "grey area" for .NAME registrations, as there may be many good reasons for registering .NAMEs for deceased people, the publication of people's Wills by their Trustees on the internet, for one example, or the development of a website in memory of a lost loved one or deceased famous person (ie, "LINDA.MCCARTNEY.NAME") or a group of people (ie, "WTC.VICTIMS.NAME.") Indeed, .NAME is also potentially very useful for reporting very useful lists of survivors of major disasters and tragedies (ie, "WTC.SURVIVORS.NAME") or for commemorating the lessons to be learnt from a such an evil event and terrible loss of life (ie, "WTC.MEMORIAL.NAME.")

    However, a large number of .NAME domains do not follow the format specified in ICANN's agreement with the .NAME registry. Rather than matching the first and last names of their registrants, or matching their registrants' commonly-used nicknames or pseudonyms, these many domains instead seem to have commercial, humorous, or other intentions inconsistent with the .NAME charter and the .NAME registration agreements that bind all .NAME registrants; to follow naming conventions other than those required by the .NAME registry; or to reflect defensive registrations performed outside .NAME's official Defensive Registration system.

    Global Name Registry's website clearly states that a .NAME is registerable in ways other than just the rather restrictive "first name . last name . NAME" format.

    Fictional and cartoon characters can be legitimately registered, as well as trademarks of any kind. This means that "BUGS.BUNNY.NAME" or "DONALD.DUCK.NAME" or "MICKEY.MOUSE.NAME" or "ROAD.RUNNER.NAME" are all clearly acceptable uses of the .NAME principal, at least, according to the Global Name Registry's own published acceptable use policy. It also clearly implies that domain names, such as "AOL.INSTANTMESSENGER.NAME" or "ALTA.VISTA.NAME" are able to be legitimately registered either through the use of rather expensive Defensive Registrations or simply as individual domain names that can be linked to authentic websites associated with the famous trademark(s.) Actually, as I recall GNR expressly discourage trademark holders from doing this as, to be blunt, they would clearly rather make a lot of money from Defensive Registrations.

    A clear and good example of an apparently ineligible .NAME domain, which is actually proven to eminently eligible, is "DURAN.DURAN.NAME." This domain is (i) not only a registered and famous trademark of the recently reformed Duran Duran - specifically, band member Nick Rhodes (real name, Nicholas Bates, who could legitimately also register† "NICK.BATES.NAME", "NICHOLAS.BATES.NAME", "N.BATES.NAME" or his alter ego "NICK.RHODES.NAME" or, indeed, any other 'Nick' name, alias or alter ego he was commonly known by, etc.)

    "DURAN.DURAN.NAME" also (ii) conforms to the "first name . last name . NAME" principle for any personal names within the .NAME registry. The reason for this being that "DURAN DURAN" is both the first name and the last name of a fictional character called "Mr Duran Duran" in the movie "BARBARELLA." (Hence the band's release of "ELECTRIC BARBARELLA" on one of their less-successful albums "MEDAZZALAND.") "DURAN.DURAN.NAME", therefore, is a genuinely registerable and maintainable .NAME domain, even though it is not - as far as I know! - any real person's name.

    Furthermore, if your are the Queen of England, for example, you would be eligible to use your Official Title, as you were clearly extremely "commonly known by" this name! In such as case, it would sensible and most interesting to register "THE.QUEEN.NAME" or "THE.QUEENS.NAME." The same logic, therefore, also applies to Prince Charles and both of his two sons, Prince William and Prince Harry, who could legitimately register "PRINCE.CHARLES.NAME", "PRINCE.WILLIAM.NAME" and "PRINCE.HARRY.NAME", respectively, on the same basis.

    With regard to whether "SMITH.FAMILY.NAME" or "THE.SMITH.NAME" conform strictly to the "first name . last name . NAME" rule, clearly they do not.

    However, in all honesty, who cares and does it really matter? If someone's name is "SMITH", then surely it would be considerable reasonable and in good faith for them to attempt and succeed in registering "SMITH.FAMILY.NAME" or "THE.SMITH.NAME"?

    The assumption has been made that ICANN's authorisation for .NAME to be used only for personal names in the "first name . last name . NAME" format is surely flawed. Unless the Global Name Registry is deceiving us all, they clearly state that other combinations of names and word can be legitimately registered. Even within personal names, we are told, domains such as "last name . first name . NAME" or any alias, nickname or alter ego by which the person is "commonly known" are equally acceptable and "conform" to GNR's policy on .NAME Eligibility. Let us take one example. Say you're nickname happens to be "DUMB ASS", you are clearly not going to register "DUMB.ASS.NAME", "A.DUMBASS.NAME" or "THE.DUMB-ASS.NAME." However, that is not the point. The point is, you could legitimately register either of these as a .NAME if you wished, without anyone being able to "steal" or cancel you new domain name, providing you could prove to some extent or other that "DUMB ASS" was an alias you were commonly known by (and poor you, if it is!)

    In my opinion, whether one uses the word "A", "MY", "OUR", "THE" is irrelevant. The reason being that if you wished, for example, to register your nickname which happened to be - for illustration - "TIGER", then clearly you would not wish to register a meaningless domain name such as "TI.GER.NAME." Quite clearly, you would in fact register "A.TIGER.NAME", "MY.TIGER.NAME" or "THE.TIGER.NAME." Indeed, much more likely, you would cleverly register "DOWN.TIGER.NAME" or "TIGER.TIGER.NAME"!

    Of course, I realise domain name purists would most likely baulk at such suggestions, but if use of many of so-called "non-conforming" domain names such as these could - potentially, at least - benefit the internet community as a whole, then who are we to object?

    Surely such objection is simply a sign of old-fashioned rigidity and an inflexible legalism that encourages a regard for "the letter of the Law." Generally speaking, this is - more often than not - lukewarmly or coldly opposed to encouraging free speech and liberty within "the spirit of the Law", which is always ultimately much more important, is it not? In my opinion, this is where so many of ICANN's policies and methods have gone wrong (and are still going wrong, to a lesser extent.) Such attitudes simply keep formality and legalism entrenched in a rigid and inflexible system. Hardened advocates of such a policy thereby often throw common-sense to the wind. Clearly, the spirit of such matters is not what they are concerned about. They seem to just wish to maintain the Status Quo and not rock the boat of traditions and previously established principles.

    Such Rules and Regulations limit creativity and inventiveness within the .NAME registry, which I think would be a bad thing, if it were allowed to prevail by either ICANN and/or GNR.

    Surely we should be encouraging Freedom of Speech, Information, Liberty, Support and Usefulness and not insisting on letter-of-the-Law Legalism or nit-picking for the sake of it simply because of an outdated list of Rules?

    Re: What more can you say
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Sunday June 02, @03:29PM (#6761)
    User #2810 Info
    Nitpicking? Ya right. I can't say any more, I'm nearly speechless. I'd give a day's pay to be a fly on the wall when Adrian wafts this past GNR or a panel. -g
    Re: Nit-picking and legalistic rule-keeping insist
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @10:56PM (#6769)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I know where you are coming from.

    I am more than happy to defend my position, and others, from any legalistic interpretation of the .NAME policy.

    Quite clearly and also evidently, the Global Name Registry has a different interpretation of what .NAME is for themselves, so they would look pretty stupid criticising me for having just a slightly different concept to them on this issue! (please see my fuller statements at http://www.ad2000d.com/.NAME/ for more information together with clear and logical arguments for my position.)

    Thanks for wishing to be a fly-on-the-wall - us CyberSwatters are good at squashing flies (*joke* smile ;?)
    Re: Nit-picking and legalistic rule-keeping insist
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 03, @03:19AM (#6788)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    I don't speak for Fnord or anybody else, but I myself don't demand an absolutely nitpickingly legalistic view of enforcement of every TLD's charter. I'd be happy if people at least stayed vaguely within the spirit, instead of just treating everything as a free-for-all. In the case of .name, the spirit is that the names be registered by individuals for their own personal use, and that they correspond either to the individuals' legal names or names they're commonly known as. Such things as smith.family.name or johnandmary.smith.name, while perhaps technically against the policy (since they refer to a group of people instead of one person) wouldn't really greatly bother me if they were in fact registered and used by people named Smith for their personal family site. And it wouldn't bother me if somebody with a title on their name, like Prince Charles, registered a name that included it, since that is indeed what they're commonly known as. However, none of this is particularly relevant to your own case, where you've registered all sorts of names that don't correspond to anything by which you, personally, are known, supposedly on the behalf of "clients" with whom you don't actually have any sort of relationship, apparently.
    Re: Nit-picking and legalistic rule-keeping insist
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Tuesday June 04, @07:37PM (#6826)
    User #2810 Info
    But you are speaking for me Dan. As usual, I agree with your viewpoint on this. -g
    Re: Legalistic rule-keeping insistance
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @08:51AM (#6856)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    PLEASE SEE HTTP://WWW.AD200D.COM/.NAME/
    Re: Legalistic rule-keeping insistance
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Thursday June 06, @03:18AM (#6884)
    User #2810 Info
    I've seen it Adrian, and I've seen the same content from you here, numerous times. No-one seems to be buying it, no matter how many times you repeat it. You said here a few days ago that you would address my question regarding your $500 per name out-of-pocket expences per name at your above URL. You haven't done so. I also note that those of your .names that I have tried don't resolve, so not only do I not believe that you can claim in excess of $400 hosting costs per name to get you to the $500 figure, I don't even see any evidence that you're paying any hosting fee.

    Because the above URL is part of your commercial enterprise, and because it doesn't point to any unique content not available here, the above post is equivalent to spam. -g

    Re: Domain Name for Transfer at Cost
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @08:27PM (#7018)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I did not have to justify my costs and expenses to others - that is my business alone.

    However, if you take a fresh look at my site, you will see we (myself and my friends) are now offering ANY famous or trademark-incorporating domain name for FREE TRANSFER to the rightful owner(s.)

    We are doing this not as any admission of guilt or wrong-doing, but to set a precedent and example to the Internet Community, as we have also done regarding the .NAME issue.
    Re: What more can you say
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 02, @10:38PM (#6768)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    The first part of your reply in quite well reasoned and welcomed; the second abusive (yet again) and also incorrect (again)...

    Someone's 'legal' name can be their 'actual' name, ie that as on their Birth Certificate... However, it can also be their name on any of the following basis...

    In most legal systems, provisions are made for individuals to change their names officially if they so wish: for example, in Britain by deed poll, a deed made by one party only.

    When people use names other than their given and inherited names, they may be doing so for professional purposes (a performer's stage name, a writer's pen name) or for socially dubious purposes (to avoid the police, the payment of debt, a spouse, etc.)

    In such cases, the new name is an alias (Latin: otherwise) and the police and other authorities may refer to someone as John Smith a.k.a. John Bland where aka means 'also known as'.

    (BTW - I care as much about Internet Governance and the integrity of the domain name system as anyone else)
    THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE .NAME ISSUE!
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @08:12PM (#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/
    Re: THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET ON THE .NAME ISSUE!
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:32PM (#6987)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Shortly AFTER I posted my suggestions, GNR did in fact post their Official Policy and Opinion on such matters; quite clearly, they have put me in the clear with nearly all of my registrations and are not going to challenge any of them in the spirit of the purpose of the .NAME domain.

    Three cheers for GNR!
    No More Controversial Famous Name Registrations
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @12:45PM (#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
    GET A DOT NAME FOR YOURSELF
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday July 27, @09:38PM (#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:
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @06:28AM (#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

    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:44AM (#6628)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    That is actually quite funny and a good joke! (LOL)

    Just for the record, any visitor to my site (http://www.ad2000d.com/ will see that ALL of my McCartney .NAMES are available for transfer FREE OF CHARGE to Sir Paul McCartney ONLY, as are my Duran Duran related .NAMES available FREE OF CHARGE ONLY to members of the recently reformed Duran Duran... Oh yes, and any British Royal Family .NAMES are also available FREE OF CHARGE to the respective Royal Highnesses, such as HRH The Queen, HRH Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry, etc...

    Any visitor to my site will also see I am offering three domains to support the victims of the WTC Disaster. Any genuine charity involved in the support work or memorial building/rebuilding is welcome to apply for any of these .NAME, again FREE OF CHARGE.
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:31PM (#6643)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Oh boy! You just don't GET IT, do you?

    If I HADN'T registered these .NAMEs, someone else would have and more than likely not Sir Paul McCartney, but some money-grabbing, immoral cybersquatter out to rip-off a good, kind-hearted and abundantly talented singer/songwriter.

    This way, he can have them if he wishes to and, if not, he can rest assured his name will not be abused in any way (ie, by linking to commercial and/or pornographic websites) and also that he will not be blackmailed by some dumb-ass idiot who thinks registering domain names and trying to sell them to the rightful potential owner for £10,000 to $1,000,000 is funny. I don't. Nor would Sir Paul...

    Get it?
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @04:38PM (#6672)
    User #2810 Info
    Bullpucky Adrian. You were previously asking $1000 for each of those names (and the record still exists, even if you've erased it from your own webpage), now you're asking $500, or even claiming that you will transfer them to the rightful party for free (though I suspect you'd try to weasel in a handling fee). It won't wash. You're on the run. It's not us you have to convince. The panelists will harrumph: we are not amused, then it'll be offwith.yourhead.name. -g
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:24AM (#6688)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    The reasons for reducing the transfer fees from $1,000 to $500 was simply due to the fact more had been registered and therefore my costs were more spread over the domains; web hosting costs have also come down dramatically in recent months.

    Regarding offering new .NAMEs for FREE, this was an oversight on my part not to amend the domains.htm/html pages with the new pages a month or so ago;

    And, finally, FREE does mean FREE - totally
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Sunday June 02, @09:38AM (#6746)
    User #2810 Info
    AdrianDumbass2000 writes:
    ...web hosting costs have also come down dramatically in recent months.
    Adrian, if you registered these names out of the kindness of your heart to save them from cybersquatters and to offer them to their (apparently) rightful owners, then why in the hell do you have any hosting costs?

    You don't have to host the names to protect them, and in fact if you make them live you devalue them for the subsequent owner. Assuming that you can spin this in some fashion to claim that you have to host them, you can use a free host, and if you don't want banners (and there are even bannerless free hosts if you look hard enough), you can use a virtual host at $5/mo. per name. That's $60/yr, or even cheaper if you pay by the quarter or the year, and if you aren't paying that way but by the month then you haven't (or shouldn't have) paid anywhere close to $60 yet. But let's say you're paying $60/yr. Add that to the cost of registration and you're still under $100 per name. How then do you come up with the $500 supposed breakeven figure? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question, and I know I won't get a straight answer anyway. -g

    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday June 03, @12:37AM (#6779)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    The answer is simply too long-winded for my current state of health to give right now...

    I will cover this aspect on my site at http://www.ad2000d.com/.NAME/

    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 03, @01:31AM (#6782)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    My hosting provider, Dreamhost, allows an unlimited number of mirrored or redirected domains at no extra charge.
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Monday June 03, @02:08AM (#6786)
    User #2810 Info
    I'm moving over there. You can't beat that :) Actually, I was talking about unique sites, virtualized to the same IP, for $5 each per month. I've done that in the past but am not doing so at the moment, my sites are generally on different hosts for quite a number of reasons, so I won't give any particular provider a plug. But I can see if Adrian wanted to point his names to ad200d.com (surely he can't have time to create unique content for each, and post here, and fight *DRP actions), dreamhost (or its equivalent if there are such) would be the route to go. -g
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @11:59AM (#6866)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    so what???
    Re: More great research
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday May 31, @07:15AM (#6613)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    I don't see how this guy registering a lot of stupid .name domains makes the whole TLD "worthless"... I can still use dan.tobias.name for its intended purpose, as can any other individual; if a cybersquatter had registered it first, I could challenge him/her/them using the policy in effect. The existence of various stupid non-names in the namespace has no effect on me.
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:51AM (#6630)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I agree. If anyone bothers to check my .NAMES they will see they are not stupid, rather potnentially very useful and clever, perhaps (a point of view, I accept!)

    Take one example....

    THE.COOL.NAME

    Someone could set up free of low-cost e-mail accounts such as Sam@A.COOL.NAME, Jane@A.COOL.NAME, etc., etc. or simply purchase it for just themselves as a cool e-mail address

    Where oh where is the harm in that??

    Isn't that still a personal use of a .NAME?
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:25PM (#6642)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You don't know what you're talking about - they do NOT have to be a persons REAL name. I suggest you check out GNR's own site information on .NAME registerable domain names at http://www.gnr.com/

    Please get your facts straight before slagging someone off as a liar!
    OT
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @10:30AM (#6618)
    User #2810 Info
    Off topic, but I've heard from a NewsBytes reporter that they're toast as of today. Bummer, they were one of the better ones. -g
    Re: OT
    by PeterBarron on Friday May 31, @10:35AM (#6621)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Can you elaborate a bit on this?

    ++Peter
    Re: OT
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:55AM (#6633)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    darn, I forgot THE.TOAST.NAME ... oops! now someone else will register that one! doh (*wink*)
    Re: OT
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @05:30PM (#6674)
    User #2810 Info
    Sorry Peter, not really. I haven't seen any mention of it on any of the news sites, or fsckedco. But as of today, it appears they're done. I think they were an offshoot of the Washington Post and I think the WP is now gonna take their TechNews thing and charge for some of the content to try to make a better go of it. I'm really just guessing on all that. I expect we'll hear more in the next few days. -g
    Re: OT Newsbytes RIP
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @06:14PM (#6675)
    User #2810 Info
    I should get off the web and read my email more often. The politechbot list list has coverage. -g
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:53AM (#6632)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Many of my .NAMES are inventive usage of the .NAME principal, they are NOT in Violation of any so-called Rules.

    Regarding, famous or trademarked names, I am not a Cybersquatter, so please don't imply I am everyone... Quite the opposite, in fact!
    Re: More great research
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @10:26AM (#6617)
    User #2810 Info
    First, I don't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Ben. What little research I did on Adrian could be done by anyone.

    Second, I find it interesting that most of the research being done on the gaming of ICANN's new TLDs is being done by outsiders (in the sense that they aren't, SFAIK, part of any formal ICANN process like the NTEPPTF), and on a volunteer basis.

    I am thinking here of Ben Edelman, Richard Henderson, Bob Connor, and to a much smaller degree my own efforts (though, inspired by these others, I have done some deeper research on a couple of parts of the rollout that I have yet to submit to ICANNWatch, hopefully I will be able to publish at least one of them in the next few days, both remain unfolding stories).

    However, I would also like to mention the work of some of the posters on the ICANN NTEPPTF and earlier fora. While many of them are given to colorful language and are admitted speculators, I see little evidence that most of them would fit even a broad definition of cybersquatters. Their reasons for researching the gaming of names may be more self-serving (EG: why did that ***hole get that name ahead of me?), but it is nonetheless often good and valid research, and still done for free.

    Finally, I will mention the research (the link is to his just released work, he has done earlier research as well) done by ICANN registrar Directi CEO Bhavin Turakhia. While again he may have been doing this for self-serving reasons, he was doing it for free (he says due to insomnia and boredom). He is also largely an outsider to the process, being rather controversial even amongst his fellow registrars.

    The point I want to make is that ICANN's own NTEPPTF committee, a year old next week, is well overdue on analyzing, or apparently even seeking, such useful data. This underlines one of the major ways in which ICANN has gone so terribly wrong. The idealistic view on ICANN's formation was that the largely volunteer effort that brought us the internet would continue along, with ICANN acting as facilitator. Instead, at every turn, volunteer efforts, including by those with no conceivable financial interest to look out for with regard to their work, have been shunned, ignored, devalued. Instead we have top-down appointed committees of those with vested financial interest in the outcome, meeting in secret, or not meeting at all, but in any case producing no useful data, nor coming to useful conclusions (all the while continuing to make money off a thoroughly gamed system).

    I would also like to stress that not only has the data been ignored, to the extent that the above outside volunteer parties have also suggested changes, I have found them to be, almost entirely, eminently sensible and workable. Again as near as anyone can tell, these suggested changes have been, and will probably continue to be, studiously ignored.

    Third, and following from the above, I am not yet willing to accept that human screening of domain names for veracity cannot be done. Ben has (SFAIK) singlehandedly, and without pay, written software which can flag many suspicious registrations for possible human intervention (and .name already has software in place, they just want to make a buck off it). Why could a new TLD, let's take .name for example, not say:

    Here's the deal. Do the research however you want. Turn in x number of names [let's say 10] that don't meet our criteria and have improperly passed through our own screening procedures, and we'll give you a free domain name registration. We will also make those names re-available at our earliest opportunity. If you do meet the criteria for any of the names you turned in, you will be given first choice to register them at normal cost. If you choose not to do so within x period of time they will go back into the general pool.
    Not only would this do a lot to clean up the drek, I don't think it would mean much of a negative hit to the TLD bottom line (how much of a negative hit has .info taken due to its self-challenges, to say nothing of the loss of goodwill amongst all the new open gTLDs?). It would also mean that all but the explicit gamers and cybersquatters would be pulling in the same direction. I could go on, but I gots work to do. :) -g
    Re: More great research
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday May 31, @10:34AM (#6620)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Well, if registrars / registries had done that sort of thing with regard to registrations fitting the intended purpose of all TLDs, from the beginning, then maybe we wouldn't have as much of a mess with domain names in general... like, if Network Solutions actually checked that all .com registrations were going to commercial entities, all .org registrations to noncommercial entities, all .net registrations to network infrastructure providers... and somebody ensured that all .tv registrants actually had a presence on the island of Tuvalu... :)
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:01PM (#6634)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Reagarding .TV, it was bought it for millions by a commercial company who wilfully effectively 'cybersquat' on any good names before they are even registered and then (try to) sell them at a premium, as they also do two and three-letter .TV domains...

    I don't agree with that and ICANN should do something about it.
    Re: More great research
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @03:23PM (#6664)
    User #2810 Info
    Absolutely. It was NSI opening it up to all comers, claiming they couldn't police it (and they had hundreds of employees) that got us into the mess we're in today. Ben has shown how one person and some software can do a decent job. And back when NSI washed their hands of it, they probably weren't doing the quantity of registrations that .name just did. Meanwhile, if you tried to register something with the string 'Olympic' in it a couple of years ago, NSI would tell you that you couldn't have it. They must have had the software in place to check for that kind of stuff, backed up by human intervention if necessary, but they'd only do it for other evil empires like the IOC. -g
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:14PM (#6637)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    "...many of them are given to colorful language and are admitted speculators, I see little evidence that most of them would fit even a broad definition of cybersquatters..."

    Yep. I hope you're including me in that. I don't break either UDRP rules, nor ACPA law for that matter, not that it applies to UK Citizens anyway. In fact, I am genuinely doing the internet community a service - at a big psychological, social and financial loss to myself to date too... (*sigh*)... Hopefully, that will change very soon.
    Re: More great research
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @04:14PM (#6669)
    User #2810 Info
    I'm not including you in that. [shakes head] Adrian, you fit the narrowest of definitions of cybersquatter. As I just pointed out elsewhere on these threads to nowhere, you registered bulk.register.name, and through bulkregister yet. What were you thinkin'? -g
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:50PM (#6710)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    better me than some cybersquatter - why didn't BulkRegister take out a Defensive Registration of their name themselves - lucky for them, I've saved them quite a lot of money! LOL
    Re: More great research
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:46AM (#6629)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    They haven't said that. Only you have and you're totally wrong!
    Re: What's in .NAME?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 01, @11:20AM (#6687)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    funny thing is, I actually have chronic M.E. syndrome - which is C.F.S for the uninformed - there are courtesy links to support organisation for the illness on my site.
    Re: What's in .NAME?
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Saturday June 01, @06:02PM (#6706)
    User #2810 Info
    I noticed that. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. If you are telling the truth (a reasonable thing to wonder under the circumstances), you have my sincere empathy. That is an illness I once suffered from. I am not normally so self-disclosive on ICANNWatch but what they hey, most everyone has gone home from this thread.

    For those who don't know, M.E. is often considered incurable. I was certainly led to believe that it was by the specialists I saw. I did my own research via the internet, came up with my own treatment protocol (which used neither prescription meds nor snakeoil, a pox on both those houses too) and put it to use. I have since been symptom free for about 4 years (I consider myself cured). Without the nearly free and open access of the internet to information I needed I would still be in a bad way, or worse. It is a hellish illness I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. That is one of the main reasons why I am so passionate that the control freaks not take over the namespace. They want an information highway lined with their billboards selling you stuff that is useless, or worse than useless, and they don't want you to see anything else. And ICANN is their willing stooge.

    I wish you the best of luck Adrian, but registering domains like take.prozak.name or do-not-take.prozak.name (for example) just gives them the excuse to erect more billboards, and fences, and tollbooths, and... -g

    Re: What's in .NAME?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday June 03, @12:34AM (#6778)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Yes. It is true. I do have both Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and ME (now considered separate illnesses by many experts, I am told.)

    ME/CFS has ruined my life and caused me not only to miss appointments and social events, but also make ill-thought out decisions that have - in turn - made my life a vicious-circle of stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and illness.

    Any pointers on how to break this evil cycle would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you for your sympathetic post.


    OT
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Monday June 03, @01:56AM (#6783)
    User #2810 Info
    Off topic post, but what's one more snowflake in this blizzard. Some pointers. Note: IANAPhysician.

    If you are on prescribed meds, research them online till you know them better than the manufacturers. I found out I was on meds that not only had never been shown to have efficacy for my illness, they actually had known (but not to my physician) side effects that made me worse. If you do the research and decide to stop some/all meds, do not do so abruptly.

    Remove as much stress from your life as you reasonably can. Stress is not what you want if you have PTSD. Even if you don't, stress is poison. Posting a torrent here, and getting torrents in return, is probably not a good thing.

    In my own case I broke the vicious cycle by breaking the vicious cycle. It is both that complex and that easy. Change your attitude, your diet (meat full of growth hormones is something to be wary of), change your meds (if necessary, depending on your research), your lifestyle, your hairdo. In short, rewrite your own life so it turns out better for you. Register adrian.miles.name and be content with that, and proud of it.

    If I may beg the indulgence of ICANNWatchers, this feelgood post is not entirely off-topic, the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) bears many interesting parallels to ICANN. It is controlled by BigPharma, the major pharmaceutical manufacturers, so their interests are looked after ahead of the consumer. It has far exceeded its mandate, IE: mission creep, except in areas like tobacco where there is enough money floating around for them to look the other way. And it tries to get other countries to fall into line with its policies, often using coercive bully boy tactics. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture. This is why much of the rest of the civilized world looks with a wary eye at the US, its processes are so easily and thoroughly gamed. With ICANN being born in that culture, it would have been surprising if it had turned out differently than it has. -g

    Re: OT
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @12:02PM (#6867)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Thanks a lot.

    I accept most of that, but feel justice MUST be done within ICANN and the UDRP - it is fundamental to Consumer Rights and Internet Freedom of Information Access!
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday May 31, @06:32AM (#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
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @11:28AM (#6626)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Under UDRP Rules, at least with the National Arbitration Forum, the losing party does NOT pay costs; the Claimant pays the inital fee and the Respondent can choose to have three-member panel, in which case they pay for a further panel member and the Forum appoint a further chairperson panel member.
    Re: You would know something about losing a UDRP t
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:21PM (#6641)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I've never lost even one UDRP Case, for the record. I've only been a Respondent in ONE and that has not been decided yet, but is due to be very soon...

    It is true that I graciously conceded the (apparent) cancellation of two .NAMES to AOL in the very first ERDRP case for the .NAME domain, but that case was NOTHING to do with Trademark infringement, bad faith or passing off, or anything else immoral or illegal. These two .NAMES still show as registered to me, as I told AOL again and again, I couldn't get them deleted as they CANNOT be until Mid June when the .NAME Registry officially goes live! ( but they wouldn't listen to either me or GNR and therefore won a hollow victory for no reason other then to harass me... I elaborate on that in my UDRP case which I will be publishing my Response on my site for in the next few days at http://www.ad2000d.com/ and http:/www.aim5.com/ )
    Re: You would know something about losing a UDRP t
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 03, @03:23AM (#6789)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    True, your ERDRP case had nothing, technically speaking, to do with trademark infringement... rather, as that policy was designed, it had to do with whether your registrations met the qualifications for .name registration, which indeed happens to be the topic under discussion here in this forum. And, by your own admission in that case, your registrations did not meet the qualifications, so you lost the first of what will probably eventually be a large number of ERDRP cases.
    Re: You would know something about losing a UDRP t
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @02:19PM (#6654)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Only one ERDRP case (not UDRP) - do you ever get your facts straight BEFORE mouthing-off and defaming others? I guess not.
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday May 31, @12:15PM (#6638)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Please remember: A .NAME does NOT have to be your ACTUAL name
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Wednesday June 05, @03:21AM (#6849)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    That should be "executor", not "executioner"... if you were somebody's executioner, I don't think they're relatives would want you having any control over any surviving property left by the person you killed... :)
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @12:06PM (#6869)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    (*SIGHS AGAIN*) OH DEAR... HMMM... NEVER MIND.
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @12:04PM (#6868)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    (*sigh*) TAKE A LOOK AT HTTP://WWW.AD2000D.COM/.NAME/

    THEN GET BACK TO ME!
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @11:27PM (#6924)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    SEE COMMENT POSTED TODAY - THANKS.
    Re AOL v Adrian Paul Miles NAF UDRP Case Decision
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04, @02:50PM (#6820)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN


    NAF UDRP CASE PROVES CLEAR PANELIST ABUSE OF UDRP RULES

    RE AMERICA ONLINE (USA), INC.
    V
    ADRIAN PAUL MILES O/AS AD 2000 D . COM
    (ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS)


    This so-called UDRP Decision is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, biased and factually incorrect in so many ways it is unbelievable. The Panel's refusal to accept valid submissions paid for and provided within the required time limits is unacceptable, immoral and unfair. There are so many errors of fact and meaningless or contradictory statements in this Decision that we feel we have other choice than to refuse to accept the Panel's Decision. The Decision is clearly invalid in that: (i) One, or more, of the Panelists clearly discussed and also leaked details of the Case and it's Decision (indeed, it seems most likely, also the Full Decision and Determination) to the International Trademark Association and possibly also other news agencies and/or any other interested organisations and individuals. (ii) The Panel clearly and evidently has not made the Decision based upon all of the evidence available. Refusal to accept an essential and damning Supplemental Submission on the basis that the Respondent did not seek the Panel's permission is laughable in the extreme. By their own admission, clearly both the Forum and the Complainant received the Respondent's Supplemental Submission with correct payment and in due time on June 3, A TOTAL OF SEVENTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PANEL WAS EVEN APPOINTED. How on earth could the Respondent seek permission from a non-existent Panel? Indeed, the Case Administrator clearly accepted the Extra Submission as fully valid and therefore formed an essential and indisputable part of the Respondent's Response. In the absence of a Panel having been appointed at that time, she clearly had authority to make such a judgment by virtue of her position is Case Administrator and effectual Arbiter of such matters UNTIL the Panel was officially appointed on June 20 and also served with both the Complainant's Complaint and the Respondent's Response. The Panel's stated position clearly insults the intelligence and common-sense of the Case Administrator and, by connection, also clearly disputes and undermines both the competence, authority and jurisdiction of the National Arbitration Forum. I find this attitude unacceptable, disrespectful and repugnant. (iii) The Decision contains bizarre inaccuracies (for example, arguing that because the Respondent registered a domain name he never did in fact - at any time - register ("AOL.INSTANTMESSENGER.NAME"), makes him a proven CyberSquatter. The Panel also makes the extremely unfair assumption that the Respondent would undoubtedly link this unregistered domain to his websites. Clearly this makes many of the Panel's comments meaningless in light of the true facts. (iv) The Panel comments make gross errors of both assumption and fact against the Respondent without any genuine or factually correct evidence or proof whatsoever, nor with any sufficiently fair, logical or legal basis given for their views. (v) The Supplemental Submission by the Respondent was, and is, an essentially damning collection of evidence against the Complainant and their spurious Claims that has clearly been sidelined for reasons of both favouritism, partiality, prejudice and unfairness. Again, I am disgusted by this blatant disregard for what genuine "Arbitration" stands for. (vi) Furthermore, even without their Supplemental Submission, the Respondent's Response clearly showed that the Complainant's Claim was false under UDRP Rules; the Complainant only proved one of the three necessary key points, when they needed to prove all three under UDRP Rules, where as the Respondent proved two out of three corresponding key points for maintaining ownership and usage of "AIM5.COM." Just as importantly, the Respondent has made long-term legitimate NON-COMMERCIAL use of the "AIM5.COM" without either registration in bad faith, nor intend to defraud, confuse or mislead, nor with a view to tarnishing any trademarks of the Complainant, nor to abuse or defame the them in any way whatsoever. (vii) The Respondent finds it amazing that the Complainant has now effectively "won" ALL THIRTY-TWO of their Cases brought by themselves to the National Arbitration Forum. (viii) ICANN's UDRP Rules clearly exonerate the Respondent and even simply relying on the clear reasoning and statements of the Respondent, the Complainant simply failed to prove their Case. Furthermore, the Panel clearly should have decided the Respondent is entitled to continue both owning and using "AIM5.COM." Indeed, the Panel should also have led to a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the Complainant, on the basis of the Respondent's prior offers to transfer "AOLCYBERCAFE.COM", "AOLINTERNETCAFE.COM" and "AOLNETCAFE.COM" FREE OF CHARGE to the Complainant OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FORUM BEFORE THEIR DEADLINE OF APRIL 29, as well as clear and malicious "harassment" of the Respondent by the Complainant in light of both prior offers and the Respondent's proven ill health, evidenced as greatly worsened by the Complainant's needless actions in pursuing this Case for it's own ends. The Respondent also later repeatedly offered ALL of the Dispute Domain Names AT COST to the Complainant. The Complainant refused both offers and proceeded to continue harassing and attempting to intimidate the Respondent into giving up the four domain names without either cost or dispute. The Respondent has never denied the Complainant opportunity to receive transfer of three of the Disputed Domain Names and only argued for keeping "AIM5.COM" in that it did not break ICANN's UDRP Rules on the usage and maintenance of internet domain names. (ix) Both the Panel's comments and their Decision flies in the face of both UDRP and the Forum's Supplemental Rules, which have been clearly laid down and endorsed by ICANN, as well as by the abundant evidence of numerous prior cases. In light of the above, we ("Adrian Paul Miles" and associates, operating as ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS), cannot accept the Panel's Decision as either Valid or Legally-Binding. We therefore request the Decision by overturned by the Arbitration Forum and, if deemed necessary, by ICANN themselves, as clearly and evidently the Panel's comments, arguments and Decision mostly go against the UDRP Rules themselves. Indeed, the Panel's comments and Decision blatantly undermine the dual purpose of both the UDRP and Arbitration itself - namely, equality, impartiality, fairness and justice. For these reasons, we OBJECT to the Panel's comments, their disregard of admitted and timely evidence and - just as importantly - the Panel's Decision and Determination in this Case. We wish to make it known that we will not stand for CORRUPTION, PARTIALITY AND ABUSE of both ICANN'S UDRP and Supplemental Forum Rules; We therefore demand the Decision is REVERSED by a higher authority. We wish to make it known we are also prepared to sue any Panelist proven to have leaked the Case before it was officially announced, as well as take the Case to Judicial Review under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. I, "ADRIAN PAUL MILES", will not tolerate being publicly labelled a CyberSquatter, when I am not. I will also not allow either ICANN's UDRP Rules or the National Arbitration Forum Policies' Procedures and Processes to be made a laughing-stock amongst the grassroots Internet Community worldwide.


    WRITTEN THIS DAY: 10:22PM BST, JUNE 4, 2002

    ( WITH MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL AMENDMENTS: 12:23AM BST, JUNE 5, 2002 )

    BY: ADRIAN PAUL MILES

    (on behalf of the non-profit making friends' co-operative ANNO DOMINI 2000)


    DOMAIN ADVICE & EXPERTISE --- AD2000D.COM
    ICANN AUTHORISED NAF UDRP SUPPLEMENTAL RULES
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @01:36AM (#6843)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy "UDRP" Supplemental Rules

    THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM'S SUPPLEMENTAL RULES TO
    ICANN'S UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY

    Supplemental Rules - Effective February 1, 2002


    For the Supplemental Rules that apply to all cases filed before February 1, 2002, click here.

    Click here for a "printer friendly" version of this document.

    1. Definitions

    The Rules means the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) October 24, 1999.


    The Policy means the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999.


    The Forum means the National Arbitration Forum.
    2. Scope

    The Forum will apply the Rules, the Policy and the Forumís Supplemental Rules in effect at the time a Complaint is submitted. The Forum Supplemental Rules may be amended by the Forum in its sole discretion.

    3. Communications

    All communications must be directed to the Forum and not to the Panel.

    4. The Complaint

    The Complaint must include all elements listed in Paragraph 3(b) of the Rules and may not exceed ten (10) pages.


    The Complainant must submit three (3) copies of the Complaint to the Forum if the Complainant requests a single-member Panel. The Complainant must submit five (5) copies of the Complaint if the Complainant requests a three (3) member Panel. If the Respondent requests a three-member Panel, the Complainant may be asked to submit additional copies of the Complaint.


    In accordance with Paragraph 3(b)(xii) of the Rules, the Complainant must send or transmit its Complaint to the Respondent under cover of the Complaint Transmittal Cover Sheet posted on the Forum's web site.


    The Complaint must be sent to the Forum by e-mail (info@arb-forum.com), and either by fax or by mail.
    5. The Response

    The Response must include all elements listed in Paragraph 5(b) of the Rules and may not exceed ten (10) pages. If no Response is submitted or if the Response fails to designate a preferred method of communication as required under Paragraph 5(b)(iii) of the Rules, the method used by the Forum to communicate to the Respondent will be:


    the e-mail address Respondent provided in the Response;


    if no Response is submitted or if no e-mail address is provided in the Response, the e-mail address of the Respondent in the WHOIS on the date the Complaint was filed;


    if there is no e-mail address in the WHOIS, the facsimile address the Respondent provided in the Response or the e-mail address provided for the Respondent in the Complaint;


    if none of these addresses are provided, the facsimile address provided for the Respondent in the Complaint; or


    if none of these addresses are provided, the mail address provided for the Respondent in the Complaint.


    The Respondent must submit three (3) copies of the Response to the Forum if the Complainant requested a single-member Panel. If the Complainant or Respondent requested a three-member Panel, the Respondent must submit (5) copies of the Response to the Forum.


    The Response must be sent to the Forum by e-mail (info@arb-forum.com), and by either fax or by mail.
    6. Extension for Filing a Response

    Paragraph 5(d) of the Rules provides that the Respondent may request additional time to submit a Response, or may be given additional time if the parties stipulate to an extension and the Forum approves. Any request by the Respondent for an extension or any joint request by the parties for an extension must:


    be submitted after the parties have first conferred with each other to see if they could reach an agreement concerning the requested extension;


    be submitted in writing to the Forum and the parties within the time for the Response to be submitted;


    state the exceptional circumstances warranting the request for an extension;


    state the length of the extension being requested (no more than twenty (20) additional days); and


    be accompanied by an extension fee of $100.


    The Forum may exercise its discretion in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting an extension and if so, the length of the extension. No request for an extension will be approved if any of the conditions set forth in Paragraph 6(a) have not been performed.
    7. Submission of other Written Statements and Documents;
    No Amendment to the Complaint

    A party may submit additional written statements and documents to the Forum and the opposing party(s) within five (5) calendar days after the date the Response was submitted or the last date the Response was due to be submitted to the Forum, whichever occurs first.


    Each submission must:


    be timely received by the Forum;


    be accompanied by an additional submission fee of $250;


    include proof of service of these submissions upon the opposing party(s);


    be submitted in either hard copy or electronic form.


    The opposing party may respond, in hard copy or electronic form, to an additional submission filed in accordance with Supplemental Rule 7(a); such response must be submitted to the Forum and the opposing party(s) within five (5) calendar days after the date the additional submission was submitted.


    Additional submissions and responses to additional submissions may not amend the original Complaint or Response.
    8. The Record of the Administrative Proceeding.

    The Complaint, Response, and additional written statements and documents provided in Paragraph 12 of the Rules and Paragraph 7 of these Supplemental Rules constitute the complete record to be considered by the Panel.

    9. Appointment of the Panel and Timing of Decision

    The Forum will maintain and publish a list of Panelists and their qualifications to which any party will be directed on the Forum's web site, http://www.arbitration-forum.com. The Forum will appoint a Panelist from this list to serve as a single-member Panel.


    In cases involving a three-member Panel, the Forum will select a Chair from the three-member Panel and will endeavor to select a Chair who was not from the list of Panelist candidates provided by the parties pursuant to Paragraph 6(e) of the Rules. The Chair will sign all Orders and the Decision, coordinate and preside over the proceeding, and forward to the Forum the Panelís decision, including any concurring or dissenting opinion as required by Paragraph 15 of the Rules.


    In cases where the Complainant requested a three-member Panel and no Response was submitted as required by Rule 5(a), the Complainant may be given the option of converting the three-member Panel to a single-member Panel:


    After the time for the Response has expired, the Forum will notify the Complainant that no response was submitted and that the Complainant may convert its three-member Panel request to a single-member Panel request;


    Within five (5) calendar days of this notification, the Complainant, by e-mail to the Forum, may request that the three-member Panel be converted to a single-member Panel;


    If a single-member Panel is requested, the Forum will select a Panelist from its list of Panelists, not on the list of Panelists submitted by the Complainant; and


    If a single-member Panel conducts the administrative hearing, the Complainant will be reimbursed $1,000 of its hearing fee.


    If the Complainant fails to request that the three-member Panel be converted to a single-member Panel as provided in paragraph 9(c)(ii) above, the selection of the three-member Panel will be as follows:


    The Complainant must provide a list of three candidates and the Forum will endeavor to select a Panelist from that list as provided in Rule 6(e);


    The Forum will select a Panelist from its list of Panel members; and


    The Forum will submit to the parties a list of five candidates and will select a Panelist as provided in Rule 6(e).


    In cases where the Respondent requested a three-member Panel and the Complaint is withdrawn prior to the appointment of a Panel, the Respondent will be reimbursed $1,000 of its hearing fee.
    10. Impartiality and Independence

    All Forum Panelists will take an oath to be neutral and independent.


    A Panelist will be disqualified if circumstances exist that create a conflict of interest or cause the Panelist to be unfair and biased, including but not limited to the following:


    The Panelist has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts;


    The Panelist has served as an attorney to any party or the Panelist has been associated with an attorney who has represented a party during that association;


    The Panelist, individually or as a fiduciary, or the Panelistís spouse or minor child residing in the Panelistís household, has a direct financial interest in a matter before the Panelist;


    The Panelist or the Panelistís spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
    Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a Party; or
    Is acting as a lawyer or representative in the proceeding.


    A party may challenge the selection of a Panelist, provided that a decision has not already been published, by filing with the Forum a written request stating the circumstances and specific reasons for the disqualification.


    A request to challenge must be filed in writing with the Director of Arbitration within five (5) days of the date of receipt of the notice of the selection.


    Provided a decision has not already been published by the selected Panelist, the Forum will promptly review the challenge and determine whether circumstances exist requiring Panelist disqualification in accord with this rule.
    11. Communications Between Parties and the Panel

    No party may directly communicate with a Panelist.


    The parties may communicate with the Case Coordinator assigned to their proceeding by phone, fax, e-mail, or mail through the United States Postal Service.


    Any request by a party for any type of action by the Forum or Panel must be communicated in writing to the Forum and the opposing party(s).
    12. Withdrawal

    Prior to Commencement


    Before the five (5) day deficiency period described in Rule 4(b) expires, the Complainant may withdraw the Complaint without prejudice. A withdrawal request must be submitted to the Forum in writing and signed by the Complainant.


    The Complainant may re-initiate the same proceeding within thirty (30) calendar days after a pre-commencement withdrawal. A re-initiation fee of $100 must accompany the request to re-initiate the proceeding.


    If the Complainant does not re-initiate the Complaint, at the end of thirty (30) calendar days the Complaint is withdrawn without prejudice and the administrative proceeding is terminated. Any subsequent Complaint will be treated as a new Complaint and must be accompanied by payment of the appropriate fees.


    After Commencement and Prior to Response: After commencement, but before the Forum has received a Response that complies with Supplemental Rule 5, the Complaint may be withdrawn without prejudice by the Complainant. A withdrawal request must be submitted to the Forum in writing and signed by the Complainant.


    After Response Received: After a Response that complies with Supplemental Rule 5 has been received by the Forum, but before a Panel decision is published, the Complaint may be withdrawn with prejudice if both parties agree to the withdrawal. A withdrawal request must be submitted to the Forum in writing and signed by both parties.


    The Complaint cannot be withdrawn after a Panel decision is published.
    13. Panel Decisions

    Panel decisions will meet the requirements set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Rules and will be of a length that the Panel deems appropriate.

    14. Correction of Clerical Mistakes.

    Clerical mistakes or errors in the Panelís decision arising from oversight or omission by the Panel may be corrected by the Director of Arbitration for the Forum.

    15. Communication of Decision to Parties; Publication of Decision.

    The Forum will publish the decision by submitting the Panelís decision to the parties, ICANN, and the Registrar as required by the Rules, and by publishing the full decision on a publicly accessible web site.

    16. Fees (U.S. Dollars)

    Hearing Fees

    Number of Disputed Domain Names
    Single-Member Panel
    Three-Member Panel

    1
    $1,150
    $2,500

    2
    $1,300
    $2,600

    3 ó 5
    $1,400
    $2,800

    6 ó 10
    $1,750
    $3,500

    11 ó 15
    $2,000
    $4,000

    16 or more
    To be determined in consultation with the Forum.
    To be determined in consultation with the Forum.



    Participatory hearings:

    As stated in the Rules, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in the event an in-person hearing is held), the Forum may require the Parties to pay additional fees, which will be established by agreement of the Parties and the Director of Arbitration for the Forum prior to the appointment of the Panel.


    Non-Refundable Fees:

    Fees to be paid to the Forum as provided in these Supplemental Rules must be paid in U.S. Dollars and are non-refundable, except as provided in Supplemental Rule 9(c)(iv) and 9(e).
    17. Effective Date

    These Supplemental Rules apply to all cases filed on or after February 1, 2002.
    IS ICANN GOING TO BACK THEIR UDRP AND NATIONAL ARB
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @02:24AM (#6845)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    IS ICANN GOING TO BACK THEIR UDRP AND NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM RULES or will we be forced to sue both the Panel and America Online under the Harassment and Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act?

    The future of the Internet rests in ICANN's hands now...

    ...and ours, depending on what they decide within the next few hours and days!

    SERIOUSLY
    Re: IS ICANN GOING TO BACK THEIR UDRP AND NATIONAL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @08:48AM (#6855)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT OTHER DECISIONS OTHER THAN WHEN THEY ARE UNFAIR, BIASED OR CORRUPT.

    THE PANELS' DECISION IN OUR UDRP CASE WAS ALL THREE.

    WE HAVE THEREFORE DECIDED TO SUE AMERICA ONLINE, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM AND PANEL, AS THEY HAVE REFUSED TO OVERTURN OR REVIEW THE DECISION, DESPITE PROVEN CORRUPTION DURING THE CASE.

    WE WILL WIN.

    WE HAVE OFFERED BOTH AOL AND THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM OPPORTUNITIES TO NEGOTIATE AND COME TO A COMPROMISE, BUT THEY ALL SEEM INTENT ON REFUSING TO EITHER FOLLOW OR ENDORSE ICANN'S UDRP AND THE FORUM'S OWN RULES.

    SEE THEM IN COURT!

    (THEY HAVE UNTIL 12PM BST, TODAY, JUNE 5 TO PERSUADE US OTHERWISE)
    Further Case Notes and Recently Updated Response
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 12, @03:00AM (#7107)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    MY RESPONSE



    America Online, Inc.
    Dulles,
    Virginia,
    USA

    (Complainant)

    v.

    Adrian Paul Miles
    Wolverhampton,
    England,
    UK

    (Respondent)

    Domain Names In Dispute:

    aim5.com
    aolcybercafe.com
    aolinternetcafe.com
    aolnetcafe.com

    Case Number:

    FA 0203 000 105 890

    RESPONSE

    [1.] Respondent received a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding on March 18, 2002. The Notification stated that Complainant had submitted a
    Complaint for decision in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
    Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on
    August 26, 1999 and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (ICANN Policy), and the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (ICANN Rules), adopted by ICANN on August 26, 1999 and approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, and the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Supplemental Rules (Supp. Rules).

    [2.] RESPONDENT INFORMATION

    [a.] Name: Adrian Paul Miles

    [b.] Address: ANNO DOMINI 2000 c/o 78 Bright Street, Whitmore Reans,
    WOLVERHAMPTON WV1 4AS, England, UK

    [c.] Telephone: 01902 424 371 Ext 2

    [d.] Fax: n/a

    [e.] E-Mail: ad2000d@yahoo.co.uk

    The Respondentís preferred method for communications directed to the Respondent in the administrative proceeding:

    Electronic-Only Material

    [a.] Method: e-mail

    [b.] Address: ad2000d@yahoo.co.uk

    [c.] Contact: Adrian Paul Miles o/as ANNO DOMINI 2000

    Material Including Hard Copy

    [a.] Method: post

    [b.] Address/Fax: (as above)

    [c.] Contact: Adrian Paul Miles o/as ANNO DOMINI 2000

    The Respondent chooses to have this dispute heard before a three (3)-member panel, even
    though the Complainant has chosen a single (1)-member panel.

    The Respondent is therefore providing the names and contact details of three (3) candidates
    from any ICANN-approved Providerís list of panelists to serve as one (1) of the panelists and is also submitting the appropriate fee required for this application.

    [3.] RESPONSE TO FACTUAL AND LEGAL ALLEGATIONS MADE IN COMPLAINT

    This Response specifically responds to the statements and allegations contained in the
    Complaint and includes any and all bases for the Respondent to retain registration and use of
    the disputed domain name.

    [a.] The single disputed domain name ("AIM5.COM") is not identical nor, the Respondent maintains, is it confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
    has rights.

    Whilst it is accepted that the "AIM" is a registered and active trademark of the Complainant,
    this does not preclude others using this phrase within a domain name. Indeed, many thousands already do so, the vast majority of which are without complaint (see Appendix.)

    "AIM5" is clearly not identical to "AIM".

    Whether "AIM5" is confusingly similar to the "AIM" trademark is highly debateable and not,
    the Respondent submits, a matter for an Arbitration Panel to decide.

    The Respondent wishes the Panel to know that they have received not one single complaint or negative comment, either written or verbal, regarding "confusion" as to the domain being
    "similar" to the Complainant's use of either "AIM.COM" or "AOL.COM/AIM."

    Plainly, internet users and customers of the Complainant are not "confused" or misled in any
    way by the Respondent's use of their "AIM5" website ("AIM5.COM.")

    The Respondent submits that their use of "AIM5" within a domain name is a matter much better suited to the legal expertise and jurisdiction of the law courts of England and the USA,
    particularly given the Respondent's current location.

    [b] Applicable Disputes

    (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in
    which the complainant has rights;

    NO; The Respondent accepts this is debateable. However, the lack of evidence otherwise
    clearly shows this not to be the case.

    AND

    (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;

    NO

    AND

    (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

    NO

    In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

    [c.] Evidence of Registration and Use in Bad Faith.

    The following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

    (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name
    registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a
    competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented
    out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;

    NO

    or

    (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or
    service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

    NO

    or

    (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor;

    NO

    or

    (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

    NO; the Respondent is also a registered Affiliate of the Complainant.

    [d] Demonstration of Respondent's Rights to, and Legitimate Interests in, the Domain Name in Responding to the Complaint.

    Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the
    Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the contested domain name.

    (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona-fide offering of goods or services;

    YES

    or

    (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;

    YES; to some extent this is true, as the Respondent's "AIM5.COM" website has been operating as a non-profit consumer information and support site for well over two years now.

    or

    (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

    YES; the Respondent is also a registered Affiliate of the Complainant.

    [4.] OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

    As previously notified in the Respondent's ERDRP Response, possible proceeding against the Complainant are currently being held in limbo by the Respondent, until conclusion of both this UDRP case, as commenced March 18, 2002, and the ERDRP case commenced on April 5, 2002, and responded to shortly thereafter on April 23, 2002, before the corresponding
    deadline of April 25, 2002.

    [5.] RESPONSE TRANSMISSION

    The Respondent asserts that a copy of the Response has been sent or transmitted to the
    Complainant.

    [6.] The Respondent respectfully requests that the Administrative Panel denies the remedy requested by the Complainant.

    The Rules provide that the Respondent may ask the Panel to make a finding of reverse domain-name hijacking. This is plainly appropriate in this case.

    This allegation is substantiated with evidence.

    ICANN UDRP RULES REGARDING HARASSMENT AND REVERSE DOMAIN-NAME HIJACKING

    3. THE COMPLAINT

    (b)

    (xiv) "Complainant certifies... this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument."

    The Respondent maintains, with evidence, the Complainant in this particular case has indeed
    sought "to harass" the Respondent for an "improper purpose", namely, bringing two needless
    cases before the National Arbitration Forum, without good cause nor "good faith", other than
    "to harass" and intimidate the Respondent into giving up the contested domain names in each
    case (see Appendix for relevant correspondence.)

    The Respondent has not only been evidenced to have been made extremely ill by the
    Complainant's repeated and spurious claims, they have been made effectively bankrupt in the process, due to the time, energy and expense involved in responding to each of these claims.

    15. PANEL DECISIONS

    (e) "If after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint
    was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

    The Respondent maintains the Panel should feel compelled to find the above statement true.

    The Respondent trusts the Panel will make their decision accordingly.

    [7.] CERTIFICATION

    Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of
    Respondentís knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.

    Respectfully Submitted,
    ___________________

    [Signature]
    ___________________

    [Name]
    ___________________

    [Date]

    Annex

    APPENDIX INDEX

    (part 1):

    Respondent's Prior Offers to Transfer three of the four Disputed Domain Names Free of Charge then at Cost to the Complainant

    (part 2):

    RESPONDENT'S LONG-TERM OWNERSHIP OF "AIM5.COM"

    (part 3 a):

    Domain names including the letters "AIM"

    (part 3 b):

    Domain names including the letters "AIM"

    (part 3 c):

    Domain names including the letters "AIM"

    (part 4):

    "AIM 4 PERFECTION" PRIOR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION

    (part 5):

    FINAL RECONCILIATORY OFFER BY RESPONDENT TO SETTLE SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING NOTICE OF UDRP ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY COMPLAINANT

    (part 6):

    ADY'S INSTANT MESSAGING SERVICE INITIALLY REGISTERED DOMAIN NAMES

    (part 7):

    MEDICAL AND BENEFIT SUPPORT RECEIPT EVIDENCE

    (a) LETTER FROM RESPONDENT'S GENERAL PRACTITIONER ( DOCTOR )

    (b) LETTER FROM RESPONDENT'S PSYCHOTHERAPY UNIT CLINIC ( STRESS MANAGEMENT )

    (c) LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY ( DSS )

    (part 8):

    RESPONDENT'S KEY WEBSITE SCREEN SHOTS ( 1 - 14 )

    (part 9):

    RESPONDENT'S WEBSITE AFFILIATION TO COMPLAINANT

    (part 10):

    RESPONDENT PANELIST LIST

    (part 11):

    RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT'S REFERENCE TO PRIOR CASE

    (part 12):

    FTC COMPLAINT RESPONSE REGARDING COMPLAINANT'S HARASSMENT

    The Respondent has requested a three (3) member panel, therefore the Respondent has
    submitted five (5) copies of the Response, including annexed material, to the National
    Arbitration Forum, and one (1) copy to the Complainant's Representative, as requested in Complainant's claim.



    THE PANEL'S DECISION



    The UDRP Case Panel's Decision is due to be published on or before
    Thursday, June 6th, 2002



    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN -


    RE AMERICA ONLINE (USA), INC.
    V
    ADRIAN PAUL MILES o/as AD 2000 D . COM
    (ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS)



    This so-called UDRP Decision is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, biased and factually incorrect in so many ways it is unbelievable.

    The Panel's refusal to accept valid submissions paid for and provided within the required time limits is irregular, unfair and unacceptable.

    There are so many errors of fact and meaningless or contradictory statements in this Decision that we feel we have other choice than to refuse to accept the Panel's Decision.

    The Decision is clearly invalid in that:

    (i) The Panel or the Forum themselves clearly leaked details of the Case and the Full Decision and Determination to the news agencies and other interested organisations.

    (ii) The Panel clearly and evidently has not made the Decision based upon the evidence available, as the Rules dictate.

    ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
    Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), Section 5.

    The Response

    5(b) The response shall be submitted in hard copy and (except to the extent not available for annexes) in electronic form

    The Respondent sent both his Response AND his Appendices IN ELECTRONIC FORM - THE SAME DAY he also sent his Response IN ELECTRONIC FORM before the Extended Response Deadline of April 29, 2002. The Respondent has kept duplicates of ALL ELECTRONIC MAIL they sent at this time. Indeed, they have kept copies of ALL correspondence related to this case. The Respondent also sent this by expedited international post. Upon request of the Forum's Case Administrator, although not obligated to do so, he also paid a further fee of $250 to submit these Appendices IN HARD COPY in the form of a Supplemental Submission to both the Forum and the Complainant. The Deadline for
    this resending of the Respondent's Appendices IN HARD COPY was May 6, 2002.
    As the Panel have clearly stated, the Respondent graciously re-supplied their
    Appendix Index, together with their full Appendices IN HARD COPY to
    both the Forum and the Complainant on May 3, 2002. (The Complaint
    evidently chose not to respond to anything within these Appendices.)

    Furthermore, the Panel's refusal to accept an essential and damning Supplemental Submission on the basis that the Respondent did not seek the Panel's permission is further indicative of the Panel's deliberate wrong-doing and is also laughable in the extreme. Besides the fact that the Respondent had already sent BOTH their Response AND Appendices IN ELECTRONIC FORM to both the Forum and the Complainant, by their own admission, both the Forum and the Complainant clearly and evidently received the Respondent's Supplemental Submission with correct payment and in due time on June 3, A TOTAL OF SEVENTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PANEL WAS EVEN APPOINTED...

    ...How can the Respondent seek permission from a non-existent Panel? Indeed, the Case Administrator clearly accepted the Extra Submission as fully valid and therefore formed an essential and indisputable part of the Respondent's Response. In the absence of a Panel having been appointed at that time, she clearly had authority to make such a judgment by virtue of her position is Case Administrator and effectual Arbiter of such matters UNTIL the Panel was officially appointed on June 20 and also served with both the Complainant's Complaint and the Respondent's Response.

    The Panel's stated position clearly insults the intelligence and common-sense of the Case Administrator and, by connection, also clearly disputes and undermines both the competence, authority and jurisdiction of the National Arbitration Forum.

    I find this attitude unacceptable, disrespectful and repugnant.

    (iii) The Decision contains bizarre inaccuracies (for example, arguing that because the Respondent registered a domain name he never did in fact - at any time - register ("AOL.INSTANTMESSENGER.NAME"), makes him a proven CyberSquatter. The Panel also makes the extremely unfair assumption that the Respondent would undoubtedly link this unregistered domain to his websites. The Panel also states that it was the Complainant who requested a Three-Person Panel. It was not. The Complainant requested a Single-Person Panel; it was the Respondent who insisted upon a Three-Personal Panel in this case.

    Clearly this makes many of the Panel's comments meaningless in light of the true facts.

    (iv) The Panel comments make gross errors of both assumption and fact against the Respondent without any genuine or factually correct evidence or proof whatsoever, nor with any sufficiently fair, logical or legal basis given for their views.

    (v) The Supplemental Submission by the Respondent was, and is, an essentially damning collection of evidence against the Complainant and their spurious Claims that has clearly been sidelined for reasons of both favouritism, partiality, prejudice and unfairness. Again, I am disgusted by this blatant disregard for what genuine "Arbitration" stands for.

    (vi) Furthermore, even without their Supplemental Submission, the Respondent's Response clearly showed that the Complainant's Claim was false under UDRP Rules; the Complainant only proved one of the three necessary key points, when they needed to prove all three under UDRP Rules, where as the Respondent proved two out of three corresponding key points for maintaining ownership and usage of "AIM5.COM." Just as importantly, the Respondent has made long-term legitimate NON-COMMERCIAL use of the "AIM5.COM" without either registration in bad faith, nor intend to defraud, confuse or mislead, nor with a view to tarnishing any trademarks of the Complainant, nor to abuse or defame the them in
    any way whatsoever.

    (vii) The Respondent finds it amazing that the Complainant has now effectively "won" ALL THIRTY-TWO of their Cases brought by themselves to the National Arbitration Forum.

    (viii) ICANN's UDRP Rules clearly exonerate the Respondent and even simply relying on the clear reasoning and statements of the Respondent, the Complainant simply failed to
    prove their Case.

    Furthermore, the Panel clearly should have decided the Respondent is entitled to continue both owning and using "AIM5.COM."

    Indeed, the Panel should also have led to a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the Complainant, on the basis of the Respondent's prior offers to transfer "AOLCYBERCAFE.COM", "AOLINTERNETCAFE.COM" and "AOLNETCAFE.COM" FREE OF CHARGE to the Complainant OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FORUM BEFORE THEIR DEADLINE OF APRIL 29, as well as clear and malicious "harassment" of the Respondent by the Complainant in light of both prior offers and the Respondent's proven ill health, evidenced as greatly worsened by the Complainant's needless actions in pursuing this Case for it's own ends.

    The Respondent also later repeatedly offered ALL of the Dispute Domain Names
    AT COST to the Complainant.

    The Complainant refused both offers and proceeded to continue harassing and attempting to intimidate the Respondent into giving up the four domain names without either cost or dispute.

    The Respondent has never denied the Complainant opportunity to receive transfer of three of the Disputed Domain Names and only argued for keeping "AIM5.COM" in that it did not break ICANN's UDRP Rules on the usage and maintenance of internet domain names.

    (ix) Both the Panel's comments and their Decision flies in the face of both UDRP and the Forum's Supplemental Rules, which have been clearly laid down and endorsed by ICANN, as well as by the abundant evidence of numerous prior cases.

    In light of the above, we ("Adrian Paul Miles" and associates, operating as ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS), cannot accept the Panel's Decision as either Valid or Legally-Binding.

    We therefore request the Decision by overturned by the Arbitration Forum and, if deemed necessary, by ICANN themselves, as clearly and evidently the Panel's comments, arguments and Decision mostly go against the UDRP Rules themselves. Indeed, the Panel's comments and Decision blatantly undermine the dual purpose of both the UDRP and Arbitration itself - namely, equality, impartiality, fairness and justice.

    For these reasons, we OBJECT to the Panel's comments, their disregard of admitted and timely evidence and - just as importantly - the Panel's Decision and Determination
    in this Case.

    We wish to make it known that we will not stand for INCOMPETENCE, BIAS, PARTIALITY and CLEAR ABUSE of both ICANN'S UDRP and Supplemental Forum Rules;

    We therefore demand the Decision is REVERSED by a higher authority. We wish to make it known we are also prepared to sue any Panelist proven to have leaked the Case before it was officially announced, as well as take the Case to Judicial Review under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

    I, "ADRIAN PAUL MILES", will not tolerate being publicly labelled a CyberSquatter,
    when I am not.

    I will also not allow either ICANN's UDRP Rules or the National Arbitration Forum Policies' Procedures and Processes to be made a laughing-stock amongst the grassroots Internet Community worldwide.



    WRITTEN: JUNE 4-12, 2002

    BY: ADRIAN PAUL MILES
    (on behalf of the non-profit consumer-related friends' co-operative ANNO DOMINI 2000)
    Re: Re AOL v Adrian Paul Miles NAF UDRP Case Decis
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04, @10:40PM (#6840)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Maryland it is then!

    ;?)
    Re: arbitration decisions & what not
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05, @11:53AM (#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!
    Re: arbitration decisions & what not
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @08:22AM (#6890)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Fair shot?!?

    No way!!!
    GNR's Comment
    by BenEdelman on Thursday June 06, @03:15PM (#6907)
    User #3219 Info | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman
    Just today, GNR did send me a comment, responding to portions of my reporting & specific suggestions with comments that seemed to me, as a threshold matter, quite thoughtful. I promptly sent a reply asking if they planned to post this and expressing my desire to link to it (both from my report and from here, perhaps among other places). I haven't heard back from them yet, but I hope and expect that they'll post this in the near future.
    Re: What about .name?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @07:32PM (#6915)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Dear Anon., You said, "...If you had put forth some reasoned arguments at the beginning, people might have listened to you more." Well, I would have looked a bit stupid posting on a site I didn't know existed at the time about something that hadn't even been confirmed as registered and operational, wouldn't I now? For your information, and others, I spent quite a few hours going over the whys and wherefores myself about .NAME eligibility and allowed words and names. GNR's website did, and still does, make it quite clear that other combinations and words are allowable even though they do not fit to the early, but over-limiting, 'classic' firstname.lastname.NAME Rule.
    Re: All about Adrian?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @07:35PM (#6916)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    "...This post was about Edelman's great .name research, now it's all Adrian, all the time. Anyone care to comment more on the .name situation? Are the .names that were listed in Ben's report going to be deleted? Does GNR have any comment on the report?..."

    OK> Point taken. Over to you Ben.

    (What did GNR have to say and will they stand by it? Are you and they going to respond to my fuller comments and questions at http://WWW.AD2000D.COM/.NAME/ ?)
    CYBERSQUATTER?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Thursday June 06, @07:38PM (#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!
    Re: CYBERSQUATTER?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:30PM (#6986)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I like my skin the way it is thank you, but I take the point; I don't mind FAIR criticism, but I loathe UNFAIR comments, whoever is their source...
    Re: What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations No
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @08:23PM (#7017)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    No comment. You're not worthy of a response.


    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