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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Afilias - the Protector of Trademark Rights | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 15 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    It makes sense for them to register dot.info ...
    by dmehus on Sunday July 13 2003, @09:58AM (#11945)
    User #3626 Info | http://doug.mehus.info/
    Contrary to your belief, it makes perfect for Afilias to register dot.info. Why? Because, like "www," "dot" signifies the root of that TLD. And who controls the root of .info (in more ways than one)? Afilias.

    My only hope is that PIR does the same for .org, and gives "nic.org," "whois.org," and others 60 to 90 days notice that their names will be transferred to the registry as allowed under the registry agreement. It really makes more sense that the registry own these names anyway. :)

    Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Wrong appendix
    by Anonymous on Sunday July 13 2003, @07:30PM (#11950)

    I looked at your list of names you say Afilias reserved and it looked very short, to my recollection.

    Turns out, of course, that you were looking at the wrong appendix. You need to look at Appendix X [icann.org] to see the full list of registry reserved names.

    K looks like a list of names reserved by ICANN. X looks like a list reserved by Afilias. I'm sure the agreement itself makes this clearer. Like you, I can't be bothered to actually read it.

    So, while you may disagree that they should have had the right to reserve dot.info, you can't say they did anything improper.

    You know, I used to have a lot of respect for the opinions expressed on ICANNWatch, until I realized how very often your submitters post fairly serious accusations based on false information.

    Editors can't check everything, I know, but if even I can remember how long a list of names Afilias reserved for itself, surely the editors of ICANNwatch can too?

    But what do you care? I'm anonymous, so clearly my thoughts should not be taken seriously.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Article postet on ICANNWatch on 03 September 2001
    by simon on Monday July 14 2003, @02:19AM (#11954)
    User #2982 Info | http://www.nic.pro/
    Article [icannwatch.org]

    simon writes "Afilias, the company which introduced the .info Top Level Domain breaks its own rules. Afilias gives trademark holders priority and let them register their corresponding .info domain name in a so-called sunrise period. Only a trademark holder will get a domain name in the sunrise period according to Afilias policy. But Afilias has registered many domain names which are in fact trademarks by other parties. Afilias has registered directory.info and squatted on UK trademark 276801 (word only). But that is only one example. Below you can find some more."...

    Article [icannwatch.org]nic.PRO will be back online soon with FREE sub-domains. Dowload the FREE plug-in at
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Little Dot
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday July 14 2003, @11:25AM (#11957)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    Harvey Comics had a character named Little Dot, a girl who was obsessed with dots in all forms. (She'd probably like domain names, since they have dots in them.) So should Harvey have had first shot at "dot.*" in all TLDs? (I think they're out of business now, though.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    That lil' ol' dot - it really doesn't exist
    by KarlAuerbach on Tuesday July 15 2003, @04:44PM (#11967)
    User #3243 Info | http://www.cavebear.com/
    That dot we see separating parts of domain names - it really does not exist in the DNS protocols.

    The DNS protocols carry the fields (called "labels") around in a length-delimited format. The dot is merely an artifact of the rendering into human readible form.

    DNS is supposed to be 8-bit clean and it is supposed to happily carry around names that contain dots (and lots of other printable and unprintable characters) inside labels - thus allowing names like .... dot dotdot dot...dot .com

    It's only those domain names that represent "hostnames" (whatever those are) that have the alphanumerics and embedded hyphen restriction.

    Of course, names like that will probably drive gethostbyname() nutz and would make writting a zone file a bit odd. (And I do wonder what would happen if a resolver encounted such a name in indirect lookup via a CNAME.)

    So I find it amusing that the name "dot" would be reserved when there really aren't any dots in DNS names at the protocol level.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    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