|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them.
|
|
 |
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
|
|
| |
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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....
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for adding that, Peter - ever seen a pscyhiatrist? it's just you seem a two have a double personality disorder and jealousy complex!
|
|
|
|
|
No, never have.
But I guess you have no constructive argument, if you have to resort to name calling and personal attacks.
++Peter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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!!
|
|
|
|
|
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)
:?/
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
(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!
|
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
... or, three, Adrian has registerd to provide a courtesy link to information about Bulk Register's services!
LOL - missed again sucker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
you're entitle to your opinions
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you'll be very surprise when (sorry, if) I win then?
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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 TV’s 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 America’s 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,” said Dr. David Lewis, a leading independent psychologist. “Over 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 today’s 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?
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Do you have the permission of any of those other people on whose behalf you supposedly registered the domains?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, sounds like someone hit a nerve.
++Peter
|
|
|
|
|
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.'
|
|
|
|
|
No "violation" has occurred - ineligibility, perhaps, but not violation.
|
|
|
|
|
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!)
|
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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 ;?)
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
Samuel Johnson first said the phrase. I wasn't previously aware his good English citizenship was questionable. -g
|
|
|
|
|
I don't give a damn for peoples' fame or power, if they're comments are clearly illogical and/or stoopid!
|
|
| |
| |
What's in .NAME? 5000+ .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Restrictions