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)


     
    This discussion has been archived.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
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    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. :)

    Best,
    Doug
    Doug Mehus http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
    [ 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
    www.name-space.com/software
    [ 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 ]
    Afilias is cybersuatting!
    by simon on Monday July 14 2003, @02:36AM (#11955)
    User #2982 Info | http://www.nic.pro/
    Afilias gave Trademarks precedence. But in the event that this policy is against their own interests, Afilias has precedence and not Trademarks. There is a policy for Afilias and a policy for the rest. Is a trademark "dot" less worth than e.g. a trademark "sex" (have a look at sex.info trademark information)?

    If Afilias would have meant it serious with trademark protection, they should not have registered domain names like dot.info or directory.info.
    It looks like the whole Sunrise Process was only set up to milk domain name registrants.nic.PRO will be back online soon with FREE sub-domains. Dowload the FREE plug-in at
    www.name-space.com/software
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Wrong Appendix
    by JeffD on Monday July 14 2003, @09:14AM (#11956)
    User #3702 Info
    I have only looked at the names that were registered as part of the Sunrise Policy and Period. I have not been concerned with other names that Afilias may have reserved by agreement with ICANN as they were not part of the Sunrise Process. The three names that I mentioned in the article were registered as Sunrise names with a trademark claim. If you look at the WHOIS records, they all have the four trademark fields in common with all other Sunrise names. The other reserved names do not.

    There was no misinformation in the article.

    I followed up on dot.info because there was direct evidence that Afilias had prevented its registration by someone who applied to do so and was qualified to do so under its Sunrise Policy.

    I am not aware if anyone applied for any of the other reserved names as part of the Sunrise Process. If so, I would be happy to hear the details.

    If ICANN, through its registry agreement with Afilias, condoned Afilias registering trademarked names to which it had no intellectual property right then I think that fact simply adds ICANN as a party to a breach of the Sunrise Policy rather than exonerate Afilias.

    Or are your aguing that a decision by ICANN or Afilias that they have a right to a domain name override the intellectual property rights of others?

    Take a look at the list of names reserved by Afilias registrars - and accepted as legitimate by Afilias as part of a registrar's 'right' to reserve names for their own use (to be published later today if accepted by the moderators of ICANNWatch). Then talk to me about the legitimacy of registy/register reserved names...
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Get Afilias by JeffD Tuesday July 15 2003, @06:48AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com