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

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

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

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

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

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

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

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

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

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

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

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


     
    New gTLDs Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    posted by tbyfield on Friday June 07, @12:52AM

    KElizaga writes "We read with great interest the report of Ben Edelman entitled ".NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration Restrictions"and published on 31 May 2002. As our response below demonstrates, we have designed our registration practices to implement the ICANN-approved Eligibility Requirements in a manner that is practical and, at the same time, consistent with our obligations under the ICANN Agreement."



    In drafting the Eligibility Requirements for the ICANN Agreement, we paid particular attention to the definition of a “Personal Name.” A Personal Name, as set forth in Appendix L of the .name ICANN Agreement, is meant to be the personal name of (1) an individual or (2) a fictional character to which a person or entity has rights (together with any additional characters to differentiate it from other Personal Names). Under the ICANN Agreement, as Mr. Edelman points out, Personal Names are either a person’s legal name or a name by which the person is commonly known, which includes, without limitation, a pseudonym used by an author or painter, or a stage name used by a singer or actor. In addition, both domain names and email addresses within .name can follow the firstname.lastname.name format as well as the lastname.firstname.name format.

    The types of names listed in the Agreement by which a person may be “commonly known” was not meant to be exclusive. As long as a person is commonly known by a particular moniker, whether “President Bush,” “Queen Elizabeth,” or even “Prime Minister” (as in the case of the United Kingdom’s Tony Blair), the Eligibility Requirements permit that person to register a string in the .name space that includes the moniker. For example, George W. Bush would be permitted to register “president.bush.name” (though his father might object!), Bruce Springsteen would be permitted to register the.boss.name and Fred Rogers of famed American neighborhood fame would be permitted to register mister.rogers.name.

    As Mr. Edelman notes, Appendix L, Section (1)(c)(iv) indicates that as the .name registry operator, GNR is not required to review, monitor, or otherwise verify that any particular Personal Name Registration was made in compliance with the Eligibility Requirements or the UDRP. This is so because at the present time, meaningful verification would be difficult and costly. As an alternative, the .name registry implemented a post-hoc policing system, the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “ERDRP”), designed to permit aggrieved individuals to pursue objections to registrations with a fair amount of ease and based on fairly objective standards.

    Mr. Edelman cites some examples of “personal name usage inconsistent with the .name registration conventions.” Clearly, some of these examples are not consistent with a rigid interpretation of the Eligibility Requirements. In most cases, however, these examples are consistent with the spirit of those requirements. For example, we do not believe that most people would be disturbed by the fact that couples are using .name for mutual email addresses or web sites or that families are using .name for web sites. These registrations seem consistent with the .name goal of providing domain names and email addresses for personal use by individuals.

    There are, as Mr. Edelman indicates, a small number of humorous registrations as well as a number of defensive commercial registrations that may not meet the Eligibility Requirements. These raise some difficult issues; however, currently, we do not believe that it is necessary to prohibit these kinds of registrations or that these registrations undermine the concept that .name was designed for individuals.

    Mr. Edelman suggests a number of ways in which the .name registry can better serve the individuals for whom it was created. Our responses to these specific suggestions appear below.

    Improvements to communications between registrars and customers. Both the Eligibility Requirements and the ERDRP appear on our web site and have been incorporated into registrar/registrant agreements. GNR can certainly explore with ICANN and the registrars ways to highlight these requirements.

    Automated systems to prevent obviously-nonconforming registrations. Although this appears at first blush to be a sensible approach, it would be a daunting task to develop a system that is sensitive to the diversity of cultures and naming conventions around the world. To illustrate cultural sensitivities that need to be taken into account, the English article “the” is a common first name in Vietnam, as are “van,” “do,” and “long.” In addition, common English words such as “odd,” “even,” “bull,” “butt,” “eek,” “hole,” “hella,” “lover,” “lie,” “moan,” “rod,” and “saga” are first and last names in mainstream Norway.

    In a slightly different context, some time ago Network Solutions developed an automated system to block registrations involving six of the seven so called “dirty words” banned for on-air use by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. It turns out that blocking the seventh was impracticable, as the offending letter string was a common root in the Japanese language.

    Human review. The economics of domain name registration as contemplated for .name and in general simply will not support the costs involved in human screening of .name registrations for conformity with the Eligibility Requirements on an ongoing basis. It may sound relatively easy, particularly in the short-term with registrations at current levels. However, it would take a serious commitment of capital and resources to devote staff to undertake these reviews and the follow-up investigations that would be required. The costs associated with this kind of review are not trivial and would have to be passed on to consumers, which we have not done. In addition, this kind of review would expose the registry operator to significant legal liability – for terminating or failing to terminate a registration that seems to be non-conforming. These costs would also have to be passed along to consumers. We are unaware of any general interest top level domain that monitors its name space for non-conforming registrations. The ERDRP is designed to provide a workable, efficient alternative.

    Limits on the number of .name registrations per individual. Many valid registrations can be made by one person on behalf of another. For example, a father might register all five of his children and his wife, while a net savvy individual might give all of his/her friends .name registrations for Christmas. This kind of registration activity is completely consistent with the purpose of the .name top level domain, and we certainly do not want to prevent it. And, as Mr. Edelman points out, restrictions of this sort are easy to evade, and it does not seem desireable to drive individuals in this context to adopt multiple usernames and identities. It seems preferable to us to allow individuals to register as many names as they wish to, leaving themselves open to the risk of a challenge under the ERDRP if they do so illegitimately.

    As a general matter, in exploring the various possibilities in trying to protect the .name space, we, and the general public, also must keep in mind that we are running a business. As such, we must pay attention to issues of cost, feasibility and practicality. To the extent that people are not bothered by registrations that do not conform to the exact letter of the Eligibility Requirements, we will not be compelled to take action to investigate such registrations.

    That said, we truly want our .name space to be the address for individuals, and we will continue to market the .name space to customers in that manner. To the extent we deem feasible and necessary, we will certainly endeavor to pursue abusive registrations that are brought to our attention through the ERDRP, and we will try to influence customer behavior by educating end-users on the .name registration conventions. Finally, we will explore other options in making this name space for that which it was intended – the exclusive domain for use by individuals.

    The Global ENUM Matrix | EU Warms to Near-Takeover of ICANN By Governments  >

     

     
      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. ]

     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study | Login/Create an Account | Top | 115 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them.
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday June 07, @03:10AM (#6933)
    User #2810 Info
    I consider this a cop-out. First, it admits to allowing a small number of humorous registrations as well as a number of defensive commercial registrations that may not meet the Eligibility Requirements, but nowhere does it admit to, or directly address, intentional gaming of the system by those such as the prolific Adrian Miles. They also state that [c]learly, some of these examples are not consistent with a rigid interpretation of the Eligibility Requirements. when clearly many of these examples don't fit even a loose interpretation of the Eligibility Requirements.

    Ben Edelman's study called 8% of the names into question. While some of these do fit within GNR's loose interpretation of its Eligibility Requirements as given above, many do not. There are no doubt other names that Ben did not list as he did not filter on those terms. So what is the extent of the .names registered that don't fit even a loose interpretation of the rules? 5%? 10%? I'd suspect more towards, or past, the latter figure, and it is likely to increase now that GNR has copped out.

    To say that the DRP can be invoked to deal with this is absurd. First, who is going to pay over $1000 per name to ensure that such names are removed from registration? Second, to put this in context, the UDRP in its approximately two years of operation has heard complaints regarding approximately .01% of registered names, and in the vast majority of those cases the complainant had the additional incentive that they would wind up as the new registrant.

    The reasons given for not pre-policing are also suspect. First, as I said earlier, if Ben (a single individual) can do such research using software, why can't GNR do so proactively? Sure, a suspect name in one language may be acceptable in another, one could use additional sorting criteria (such as incoming IP) to further pare down and flag non-conforming names. Only names that failed a series of such tests would need to be flagged for human review. This wouldn't get rid of all non-conforming names, but it might make it enough of a hit and miss proposition that those intent on registering non-conforming .names would give up and go elsewhere. Second, this idea that someone might register, say, dozens of .names for their friends is unlikely. Policing each individual registration as it comes in may well not be economical, but specifically disallowing multiple registrations (let's say, over 5, or 10) unless one goes through a human would also cut down on non-conforming names while remaining economical. Indeed, it would allow for upselling that could well be an additional source of revenue.

    Someone intending to game the system might attempt to get around this by registering a few names at a time, going through different registrars, using different identities, different credit cards, but again, if it become difficult enough, it becomes uneconomical to game the system. Or are we to believe that we should throw up our hands in defeat, as GNR has done, and admit that it is economical to game the system and uneconomical to attempt to address that gaming? If that is so, we're in big trouble.

    And are we also to believe that those who paid their $50k to ICANN in good faith to be considered for a new TLD should learn from this that one can mislead ICANN about one's intentions and get away with it (Afilias and NeuLevel also aren't blameless in this regard, so this is a disturbing trend)? The only lesson the New TLD Evaluation Task Force, or anyone else, can get out of all this is that to be successful under the ICANN regime at any level it is best to lie. -g

    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @06:22AM (#6937)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    This is so simple as to be infuriating.

    ICANN differentiated between generic and restricted domains, and insisted that applications be specific as to their restrictions.

    GNR did that and was approved, and is now choosing to ignore their promises.

    If they cannot live up to their proposal, ICANN should terminate their contract and rebid the .NAME registry to a company that can live up to the proposal.

    This is yet another example of either ICANN's incompetance or inability to manage. Or both.

    ++Peter
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @09:30AM (#6951)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    No, this is ICANN's fault just as much as GNR. GNR isn't living up to its proposal and ICANN fails to act.

    Afilias and Neustar are both in the same position, so your conveniently anonymous "give it to Afilias" shines like the troll that it is.

    I've even heard griping about .AERO and .COOP. About the only new TLD that I've not heard complaining about has been .MUSEUM.

    I've even heard complaining about .PRO and its problems to date, and it's not even available yet!

    ICANN made some seriously poor decisions and doesn't have the stones to step up and fix them. The registries know this, and they're abusing this.

    It's time to re-bid ICANN and either clamp down on these abuses, or open up the root entirely.

    ++Peter
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:38AM (#6967)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    All this pales into insignificance in comparison to the corruption and bias within hundreds of UDRP so-called 'Arbitration' Cases.
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @11:00AM (#6973)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    That's nice. Just because others are breaking the rules does not make it okay for you to do the same.

    And since you've flaunted it here and on your web site, you're a choice target. Deal with it.

    ++Peter
    Re: Deal with it
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:13PM (#6982)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I am. Thank you.
    Told You So
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @08:35AM (#6942)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I hate to say it but, "I told you so."

    GNR have, as I expected and hoped, taken the common-sense, non-legalistic spirit-of-the-law approach which I advocate.

    Clearly, in light of their response, Ben needs to revise his lists significantly, especially mine regarding "PRINCE.CHARLES.NAME", "THE.QUEENS.NAME", "SIR.PAULMCCARTNEY.NAME", etc.

    So much for Mr Anonymous & Co. saying all of my .NAMES were illegal or cybersquatting...

    Eat your words guys! (Or should I say, devour your own .NAMEs and leave mine alone!!)
    Re: Told You So nothing
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @09:12AM (#6946)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    ICANN do not 'step in' - if they did they would have 'stepped in' and overturned the corrupt AOL UDRP Panel Decision, but as it is they don't even return either calls or e-mails, as usual!

    ICANN know how to 'step in' stuff, but it's rather sticky and also rather brown.... *yuck*

    BTW In case you didn't know yet, I am suing both ICANN, the National Arbitration Forum and also the evidently Biased, Partial and Corrupt Panel; the evidence is there for all to see - a complete and utter fallacy!

    See them in Court!!

    Re: Told You So nothing
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:22AM (#6961)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Wait and see, matey... I have a few big surprises in store for AOL.
    Re: ICANN responsibilities
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:23AM (#6963)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Do you run the .NAME registry or ICANN? No. Then f*** off and mind your own business for a change.
    Re: ICANN responsibilities
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:12PM (#6981)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Actually, it makes me feel better that I've stood up to nit-pickers and hypocritical, legalistic eggheads. No offence.
    So where' my public apology then?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @09:15AM (#6948)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I think I deserve one after all the abuse I've taken on this board.

    Face it - GNR have almost totally exonerated me with their own words echoing my own statements written last week, some time before their comments were published, at http://www.ad2000d.com/.NAME/

    I don't suppose I'll get many apologies or thank yous, but that seems to be the modern way these days..

    (*sigh*)
    HURRAH FOR GNR !
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @09:18AM (#6949)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Hurrah for GNR - so ICANN register and use these .NAMEs after all... cheers guys! (like I say, I told you so...)
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @09:33AM (#6953)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Adrian, sod your public apology.

    GNR says that names, nicknames and the like are for what people are commonly called.

    Are you, personally, commonly called Prince Charles? The Queen? Any of your .NAME names?

    GNR excuses these kinds of registrations for individuals, not wholesale squatters, like you.

    But solice to everyone else - GNR's legal department intends to make an example of a few serious squatters in order to get by claims that they're doing nothing at all, and our good friend here is top of their list.

    ++Peter
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:19AM (#6959)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Two words come to mind.

    Never mind.
    Re: Squatter Squatting
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:35AM (#6966)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You seem obsessed with unfairly labelling people. Glad you're not my neighbour mate! (Lucky for you you're not.)
    Re: Squatter Squatting
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @11:02AM (#6974)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    How do you know I'm not? What part of the country are you in? Maybe I should take a nice Sunday drive down your way and we can discuss it like gentlemen?

    ++Peter
    Re: Squatter Squatting
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:10PM (#6980)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Gentlemen is plural. Clearly you're not one.
    Re: Squatter Squatting
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @08:06PM (#6990)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Oh, lovely.

    You can't come up with a solid argument, so you call me names.

    Bravo. Good show.

    ++Peter
    Re: Squatter Squatting
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:17AM (#7025)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Take a look in the mirror, matey
    Re: CyberSitting
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @08:13PM (#6992)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I am a CyberSitter and Consumer Rights Activist NOT a CyberSquatter - you clearly do not know the difference.
    Re: CyberSitting=Cybersquatting
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:18AM (#7026)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I am doing that too, as it happens.
    Re: Bravo Peter
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:21AM (#6960)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    no surprises from Mr Anonymous there!
    Re: Ben's use of WhoIs Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:29AM (#6965)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What someone buys or sells is really their business and their business alone in any other business, so why not in domain names too?

    Buying a domain name is not either theft or squatting.

    Cybersquatting is a self-contradictory term people generally loosely use to unfairly label people they are jealous of and is often indicative of that, "Darn! I wish I had thought of that name!!" Syndrome.
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @06:59PM (#6988)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/



    WE ARE SUING THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM, THE UDRP PANEL AND ICANN FOR FAILURE TO APPLY OR ENFORCE THEIR OWN POLICIES...



    ...WE ARE ALSO SUING AOL FOR HARASSMENT (SECTION II), TRADEMARK ABUSE, REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING (ACPA - ANTI-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT) AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICE (LANHAM ACT, ETC.)
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @03:09AM (#7004)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    "I" represent a group of friends and associates collectively called "ANNO DOMIN 2000" - we have had correspondence with the FTC over AOL dating back to before AOL's merger with Time Warner, most recently in respect of their repeated "harassment" of me without "good cause" or "good faith."

    Oh, BTW, I've already been bankrupted by AOL's spurious UDRP claim, so I've got nothing to lose.

    My friends and colleagues are backing me.

    So will more than half of the Internet Community when they get to read ALL of my evidence (ie, my Appendices/Supplementary Submission, which damns AOL beyond repair.)
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Saturday June 08, @03:37AM (#7007)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Oh, BTW, I've already been bankrupted by AOL's spurious UDRP claim, so I've got nothing to lose.


    I guess you must not have had very much money to begin with, if a UDRP case was sufficient to bankrupt you... given that the UDRP is incapable of assessing monetary damages, and there is no requirement to have an attorney in order to respond, the necessary expenses of defending yourself in such a proceeding are limited to copying and postage costs for the hardcopy submissions; in your case you incurred additional costs to elect a three member panel and to make supplementary submissions that ended up being ignored, but the amounts involved are hardly enough to bankrupt a healthy business. If you are that short in funds, the desirability of spending as much as you did on spurious .name registrations is rather questionable, I would think. How do you intend to pay the legal and travel expenses necessary to pursue the legal case you claim you're undertaking?
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:05AM (#7021)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    (i) We are not trading

    (ii) We are operate non-profit consumer sites

    (iii) As I am long-term sick on State Benefits, I do not have to pay Court Fees

    (iv) I am defending myself

    (v) Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers and Academic are currently offering me their free advice

    (vi) I hope to shortly have the Pro Bono or 'no-win no-fee' advice and counsel of a top London Barrister within the next few weeks

    Please feel free to check out my main site for any updates to my Response to the Decision and to further details of the proceedings I am taking
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Sunday June 09, @05:13AM (#7030)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    (ii) We are operate non-profit consumer sites

    Then .org would be the most sensible domain to use, wouldn't it, not .com or .name?

    (iii) As I am long-term sick on State Benefits, I do not have to pay Court Fees

    Any such rule probably is specific to U.K. courts, and wouldn't apply in the U.S., where you will have to pursue your case under the terms of the N.A.F. policy.

    (iv) I am defending myself

    ...meaning that you have a fool for a client, by the old adage. Lots of luck going against the large teams of attorneys your opponents are going to put forward.

    (v) Lawyers, Solicitors, Barristers and Academic are currently offering me their free advice

    Another old adage says that free advice is worth what you pay for it. Do any of them have any experience with U.S. law?

    (vi) I hope to shortly have the Pro Bono or 'no-win no-fee' advice and counsel of a top London Barrister within the next few weeks

    Which once again is pretty much irrelevant to the U.S. case you're about to get into. Plus, you'll have a lot of expenses in airfare and accommodations in order to represent yourself, since you'll have to appear in person in court.

    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @11:50AM (#7033)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I live in the UK; and I am also on long-term sickness benefits. Travel to the USA is pretty much out of my control and is impossible for three reasons right now:

    (i) Ill-health

    (ii) Lack of funds; being made bankrupt by AOL over the last two cases (yes, okay, I was poor before they took litigation against me.)

    (iii) There is not enough time to get a passport

    (iv) There is not enough time allowed within UDRP Rules for a foreign person to practicably take out a court action in a different county

    I am the one making the Claim THIS TIME.

    Let them come here and fight it out. THEY WILL LOSE - BIG, BIG TIME.

    If they refuse to respond to my Claims, I will win be Default.
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:11AM (#7022)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Yes, England is! LOL

    ...And England will also paste the USA when I take on AOL, ICANN, the NAF and UDRP Panel!

    (5-0, I reckon)
    Re: Think twice
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @11:44AM (#7032)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Ha ha - that's what you think. English, European and Human Rights Law is much more far-reaching than you think!

    Wait and see....

    ...You might be a little surprised.
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 11, @02:27AM (#7066)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You don't know what your talking about. "Judicial Review" applies in ANY country. America does NOT own the internet. I am a UK Citizen, not a US one!
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 11, @08:46PM (#7101)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Jurisdiction.... yes, I have taken advice on that.
    Someone cannot impose jurisdiction on possible future court cases on the other side. However, with regard to suing AOL for RDNH, you are quite correct. They chose mutual jurisdiction of Maryland, as BulkRegister are based there (conveniently close to Washington and Virginia.) However, we are not suing AOL for RDNH nor are we suing them for return of the dispute domain names.

    I know where you're coming from, but there is such a thing as "serving out of jurisdiction" in exceptional circumstances, such as location, ill-health, injustice, human rights, etc.
    Re: Once again, you are wrong
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 23, @12:36AM (#7391)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I don't believe you are correct, but the NAF and Panel were certainly NOT fair in either the manner or outcome of their so-called Decision. It was clearly blatant bias and incompetence.
    No More Controversial Famous Name Registrations
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @12:41PM (#7011)
    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
    Re: No More Controversial Famous Name Registration
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Saturday June 08, @01:42PM (#7013)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    What religion you profess to practice is irrelevant. Some of the worst scoundrels claim to be Christians, while some of the most ethical people are outspokenly atheist. I'll judge people by their acts, not by their religious affiliation.

    You're apparently doing the right thing now with regard to your "famous-name" registrations, but it took a lot of public exposure to make you do it.
    Re: No More Controversial Famous Name Registration
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @08:18PM (#7016)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I agree that many so-called 'Christians' are often hypocrites, and also that many so-called 'Atheists' (and 'Agnostics') are often good, moral people.

    With regard to famous names and trademarks, we stand by our previous position, but believe the Internet is so blatantly abused on so many fronts that it is high time to set an example for others - hopefully - to follow suit. As you know, we also offered to do this regarding .NAME domains, but GNR clearly exonerated our registration and usage of them. Nothwithstanding, we are still immediately offering any famous or trademark-incorporating .NAME free of charge to the rightful owner(s.)
    Re: No More Controversial Famous Name Registration
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 23, @12:34AM (#7390)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Nope, they are totally FREE matey!
    Something else used to be here
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Monday January 20, @12:10PM (#10993)
    User #4 Info | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
    On Jan. 20, I deleted two items that had been just added to this thread, and which appeared to be spam ads. This had the effect of deleting some responses complaining about them. I will investigate how we close down old fora to prevent this sort of abuse in the future.
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @07:19AM (#6940)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    One must really be doing a good job, when all of the detractors are anonymous ad-hominem attacks.

    Ben points out valid flaws that ICANN regularly ignores.

    If ICANN were elected, they'd be thrown out on their arse. No wonder they want to remove the last vestiges of oversight.

    ++Peter
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @09:41AM (#6954)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    And again, easy for you to say, Mr. Anonymous. Especially when you're wrong. What personal information did Ben use, other than showing registrations by the same person.

    Take out the ability to group registrations by registrant, and you still have the basic data showing non-name domains being registered. No personal information used. Point is still valid.

    And your argument remains ad-hominem and worthless.

    ++Peter
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @10:59AM (#6972)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    Another baseless claim. How do you know how much respect I have for others? I have quite a bit. If the data weren't already there in whois, I might even agree with you.

    As it stands, you are attempting to distract from the point, which is abuse of the .NAME registration rules. Privacy or not, the problem stands.

    ++Peter
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:16PM (#6983)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    It is only a problem if YOU and Ben make it one.

    GNR and most of the rest of us do not mind that much about the 8% (*now confirmed as more like 5% by GNR's self-declared Official Policy.)
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by PeterBarron on Friday June 07, @08:04PM (#6989)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    You're absolutely right. And since I feel it's a problem, it must be.

    Had you just shut up and not been a complete arse on this board, you probably would have gotten away with it, too.

    ++Peter
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:23AM (#7028)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Oh darn! Silly me!! Aren't I stupid?!
    Privacy implications
    by edelman@law.harvard. on Sunday June 09, @04:37AM (#7029)
    User #884 Info | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman.html
    Anonymous wrote:

    The whois information for any particular registration reveals phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses, which is invasive enough. But when you can also find the number of registrations owned by any individual, then the world knows how much money that individual spent on domains. Do you want the world to know what you spend at the track, or at the blackjack table?

    I'm sensitive to this concern, or at least I'd like to be. My practice to date has been to list specific registrant names and specific domains registered, but to omit specific address information (listing at most only city, state, and country) and email address information (listing email addresses only in some masked way that prevents spamming).

    I'm sure there are some folks who think this isn't a good way to proceed -- that I shouldn't make these lists at all, or should provide less information in such lists. But this information truly is all already publicly available -- I have no inside sources!

    (Late & slow response because I'm moving into a new apartment this weekend... and as yet have no Internet access at home, not even by modem!)

    Re: Privacy implications
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 10, @03:12AM (#7044)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    What privacy? WHOIS data has always been public information. Ben is using it for an academic study, not for spamming or any other such sinister purpose.
    Re: Privacy implications
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 10, @05:17AM (#7051)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Academic study is fair use, not misuse.
    Re: Privacy implications
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 10, @08:39AM (#7060)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Anonymous people calling one another names... that's really intelligent debate... :)
    Re: Privacy implications
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday June 10, @08:41AM (#7061)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    He's not being a "sherrif"; he has no power to arrest anybody. He's merely publishing his findings based on publicly available information. The First Amendment gives him this right.
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @10:25AM (#6964)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I DO think Ben's study also goes beyond what the WhoIs Registry is meant for but, at the same time, I appreciated the effort he put into it and found it very interesting!
    Re: Love To Disagree Here Pete ...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:17PM (#6984)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    an ass is an animal, btw
    Re: Ben's Study
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday June 07, @08:38PM (#6996)
    User #2810 Info
    I'd prefer to see a private WHOIS. Aggrieved trademark holders should have to get a court or UDRP panel order to get the info from registrars. That said, as long as the WHOIS is public, I see nothing wrong with Ben using it the way that he has, or that I have regarding Adrian's registrations. Would you have preferred that, instead of providing the data he, or I, point 'the masses' to the public .name WHOIS and tell them to type in x themselves to get the results? Other than adding a step, what good would that accomplish? -g
    Re: Ben's Study
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:20AM (#7027)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    They's already done it for the Annual General Meetings - Ben just presented it in a different and legalistic way (interesting though.)
    Re: Squatting 101
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:09PM (#6979)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    You are TOTALLY wrong.

    I would also win hands-down under the ACPA and as soon as I can practically sue under that Federal Law to prove I am NOT a CyberSquatter, I will.

    BTW Stop slandering and defaming me, it is even more illegal than cybersquatting under both US and UK Law.
    Re: Global Name Registry
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07, @05:19PM (#6985)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    From what I hear they're doing very nicely - better than they hoped for.
    Re: Global Name Registry
    by fnord (d_d@email.com) on Friday June 07, @08:27PM (#6995)
    User #2810 Info
    No doubt. At GNR you are known not as 'dumbass', but as 'profitmargin'. Hey, they might even give you profit.margin.name for free once you reach 500 registrations. -g
    Re: Global Name Registry
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @12:37PM (#7010)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    hmmm... that's be very.nice.name!
    THE ANT-CYBERSQUATTING CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @03:29AM (#7005)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    S 1255 IS


    106th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    S. 1255


    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    June 21, 1999
    Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. HATCH, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



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


    A BILL
    To protect consumers and promote electronic commerce by amending certain trademark infringement, dilution, and counterfeiting laws, and for other purposes.


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'.

    SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that the unauthorized registration or use of trademarks as Internet domain names or other identifiers of online locations (commonly known as `cybersquatting')--

    (1) results in consumer fraud and public confusion as to the true source or sponsorship of products and services;

    (2) impairs electronic commerce, which is important to the economy of the United States; and

    (3) deprives owners of trademarks of substantial revenues and consumer goodwill.

    SEC. 3. TRADEMARK REMEDIES.

    (A) RECOVERY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS- Section 35 of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1117) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    `(d)(1) In this subsection, the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).

    `(2)(A) In a case involving the registration or use of an identifier described in subparagraph (B), the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits under subsection (a)--

    `(i) an award of statutory damages in the amount of--

    `(I) not less than $1,000 or more than $100,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; or

    `(II) if the court finds that the registration or use of the registered trademark as an identifier was willful, not less than $3,000 or more than $300,000 per trademark per identifier, as the court considers just; and

    `(ii) full costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

    `(B) An identifier referred to in subparagraph (A) is an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location that is--

    `(i) the trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier; or

    `(ii) sufficiently similar to a trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier as to be likely to--

    `(I) cause confusion or mistake;

    `(II) deceive; or

    `(III) cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark.'.

    (b) REMEDIES FOR DILUTION OF FAMOUS MARKS- Section 43(c)(2) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(2)) is amended by striking `35(a)' and inserting `35 (a) and (d)'.

    SEC. 4. CRIMINAL USE OF COUNTERFEIT TRADEMARK.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

    (1) by inserting `(1)' after `(a)';

    (2) by striking `section that occurs' and inserting `paragraph that occurs'; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following:

    `(2)(A) In this paragraph, the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).

    `(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), whoever knowingly and fraudulently or in bad faith registers or uses an identifier described in subparagraph (C) shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

    `(ii) In the case of an offense by a person under this paragraph that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this section, that person shall be guilty of a Class E felony.

    `(C) An identifier referred to in subparagraph (B) is an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location that is--

    `(i) the trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier; or

    `(ii) sufficiently similar to a trademark of a person or entity other than the person or entity registering or using the identifier as to be likely to--

    `(I) cause confusion or mistake;

    `(II) deceive; or

    `(III) cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark.

    `(D)(i) For the purposes of a prosecution under this paragraph, if all of the conditions described in clause (ii) apply to the registration or use of an identifier described in subparagraph (C) by a defendant, those conditions shall constitute prima facie evidence that the registration or use was fraudulent or in bad faith.

    `(ii) The conditions referred to in clause (i) are as follows:

    `(I) The defendant registered or used an identifier described in subparagraph (C)--

    `(aa) with intent to cause confusion or mistake, deceive, or cause dilution of the distinctive quality of a famous trademark; or

    `(bb) with the intention of diverting consumers from the domain or other online location of the person or entity who is the owner of a trademark described in subparagraph (C) to the domain or other online location of the defendant.

    `(II) The defendant--

    `(aa) provided false information in the defendant's application to register the identifier; or

    `(bb) offered to transfer the registration of the identifier to the trademark owner or another person or entity in consideration for any thing of value.

    `(III) The identifier is not--

    `(aa) the defendant's legal first name or surname; or

    `(bb) a trademark of the defendant used in legitimate commerce before the earlier of the first use of the registered trademark referred to in subparagraph (C) or the effective date of the registration of that trademark.

    `(iii) The application of this subparagraph shall not be exclusive. Nothing in this subparagraph may be construed to limit the applicability of subparagraph (B).'.

    (b) SENTENCING GUIDELINES-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Sentencing Commission under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--

    (A) review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes against intellectual property (including offenses under section 2320 of title 18, United States Code); and

    (B) promulgate such amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as are necessary to ensure that the applicable sentence for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime.

    (2) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION- In carrying out this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--

    (A) take into account the findings under section 2; and

    (B) ensure that the amendments promulgated under paragraph (1)(B) adequately provide for sentencing for crimes described in paragraph (2) of section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a).

    SEC. 5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

    Section 39 of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946, (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946') (15 U.S.C. 1121) is amended by adding at the end the following:

    `(c)(1) In this subsection, the term `Internet' has the meaning given that term in section 230(f)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)(1)).

    `(2)(A) An Internet service provider, domain name registrar, or registry described in subparagraph (B) shall not be liable for monetary relief to any person for a removal or transfer described in that subparagraph, without regard to whether the domain name or other identifier is ultimately determined to be infringing or dilutive.

    `(B) An Internet service provider, domain name registrar, or registry referred to in subparagraph (A) is a provider, registrar, or registry that, upon receipt of a written notice from the owner of a trademark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, removes from domain name service (DNS) service or registration, or transfers to the trademark owner, an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location alleged to be infringing or dilutive, in compliance with--

    `(i) a court order; or

    `(ii) the reasonable implementation of a policy prohibiting the unauthorized registration or use of another's registered trademark as an Internet domain name or other identifier of an online location.'.

    END


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


    Under this Law, and many, many others....

    ADRIAN PAUL MILES 10 AMERICA ONLINE 0
    Re: ANT CYBERSQUATTING
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08, @03:34AM (#7006)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Funny typo that! Good job my name ain't Adam - or I'd be Adam Ant... and I'm adamant about that and will not be budged.

    Let's lighten up on this board, guys.

    I'm AM suing AOL, NAF, UDRP Panel and ICANN - please give me a break!!
    Re: Squatting 101
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:12AM (#7023)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What do YOU know about TRUTH?!?
    Re: ACPA
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Sunday June 09, @02:15AM (#7024)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    I won't, cos I am not!

    AOL & Co. will be ****ed.
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday June 10, @10:30AM (#7062)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    zzzzzzzzz
    Standards of research and proof
    by edelman@law.harvard. on Friday June 14, @05:59AM (#7175)
    User #884 Info | http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/edelman.html
    Kojin,

    You raised a number of interesting points. Key among them, as I think about future work using generally similar methodology, is the question of how much research and verification is necessary to support an inference.

    You suggested, for example, that my listing of "rebecca.rebecca.name" does not, in and of itself, establish that this .NAME was registered by someone other than a person in fact named Rebecca Rebecca, or commonly known as such.

    You're certainly correct that I have not "proven" as much to an absolute certainty. And you're right that it would be difficult and costly to prove this, to an absolute certainty.

    But my goal wasn't to prove that any particular domain was absolutely and indisputably out of conformity with .NAME restrictions. Instead, my goal was to document a large number of domains that seemingly were likely not to conform to the rules. I've reported my raw data in a number of different formats, letting anyone interested examine the data for themselves. To me, the implication is quite clear -- Rebecca Rebecca may (conceivably, though I think unlikely!) be a person's actual or commonly-known name, but a decent portion of the names in my listings are not.

    Tabulating names by registrant also supports this inference. Take a look at .NAME Registrants with Most Nonconforming Registrations, with Listings of Registered Domain Names. Look at the 625 .NAMEs registered by Pascal Leemann-Pluot (the registrant with the most .NAMEs in my sample). He has names like bonaparte.napoleon.name, boogie.man.name, bossa.nova.name, box.office.name, brain.surgeon.name, brown.lady.name, bus.ratp.name, buy.discount.name -- and that's just a sample of the names that start with B. My own inference, based primarily on reading through this list of names, is that Mr. Leemann-Pluot is, in the overwhelming majority of his registrations, not in conformance with the .NAME registration requirements. Can I prove it to an absolute certainty? I suppose not -- maybe he has a friend who does call him "Buy Discount" on a frequent basis. But I doubt it.


    Ben


    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