A Reply to .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to
.NAME Registration Restrictions
Reply to .NAME Registrations Not Conforming to .NAME Registration
original article by Ben
2000-2002, the ICANN
TLD Program co-ordinated
the introduction of seven new top-level domains to the Internet's
Domain Name System. Among these new TLDs was .NAME,
a namespace intended, according to an
its agreements with ICANN, to be used for "personal name
registrations" of the form JOHN.DOE.NAME.
is true that .NAME was initially only intended for "personal name
registrations", such as "JOHN.SMITH.NAME."
a lighter note, I personally do not believe your use of
"JOHN.DOE.NAME" is a good example, as it would most likely
refer to nobody in particular who was actually already dead. It would
therefore not currently be eligible for official and indisputable
registration as a .NAME. However, I guess this is really just yet
another "grey area" for .NAME registrations, as there may be
many good reasons for registering .NAMEs for deceased people, the
publication of people's Wills by their Trustees on the internet, for
one example, or the development of a website in memory of a lost loved
one or deceased famous person (ie, "LINDA.MCCARTNEY.NAME")
or a group of people (ie, "WTC.VICTIMS.NAME.") Indeed, .NAME
is also potentially very useful for reporting very useful lists of
survivors of major disasters and tragedies (ie,
"WTC.SURVIVORS.NAME") or for commemorating the lessons to be
learnt from a such an evil event and terrible loss of life (ie, "WTC.MEMORIAL.NAME.")
a large number of .NAME domains do not follow the format specified in
ICANN's agreement with the .NAME registry. Rather than matching the
first and last names of their registrants, or matching their
registrants' commonly-used nicknames or pseudonyms, these many domains
instead seem to have commercial, humorous, or other intentions
inconsistent with the .NAME charter and the .NAME registration
agreements that bind all .NAME registrants; to follow naming
conventions other than those required by the .NAME registry; or to
reflect defensive registrations performed outside .NAME's official
Defensive Registration system.
Name Registry's website clearly states that a .NAME is registerable in
ways other than just the rather restrictive "first name . last
name . NAME" format.
and cartoon characters can be legitimately registered, as well as
trademarks of any kind. This means that "BUGS.BUNNY.NAME" or
"DONALD.DUCK.NAME" or "MICKEY.MOUSE.NAME" or
"ROAD.RUNNER.NAME" are all clearly acceptable uses of the
.NAME principal, at least, according to the Global Name Registry's own
published acceptable use policy. It also clearly implies that domain
names, such as "AOL.INSTANTMESSENGER.NAME" or
"ALTA.VISTA.NAME" are able to be legitimately registered
either through the use of rather expensive Defensive Registrations or
simply as individual domain names that can be linked to authentic
websites associated with the famous trademark(s.) Actually, as I
recall GNR expressly discourage trademark holders from doing this as,
to be blunt, they would clearly rather make a lot of money from
clear and good example of an apparently ineligible .NAME domain, which
is actually proven to eminently eligible, is
"DURAN.DURAN.NAME." This domain is (i) not only a registered
and famous trademark of the recently reformed Duran Duran -
specifically, band member Nick Rhodes (real name, Nicholas Bates, who
could legitimately also register "NICK.BATES.NAME",
"NICHOLAS.BATES.NAME", "N.BATES.NAME" or his alter
ego "NICK.RHODES.NAME" or, indeed, any other 'Nick' name,
alias or alter ego he was commonly known by, etc.)
also (ii) conforms to the "first name . last name . NAME"
principle for any personal names within the .NAME registry. The reason
for this being that "DURAN DURAN" is both the first name and
the last name of a fictional character called "Mr Duran
Duran" in the movie "BARBARELLA." (Hence the band's
release of "ELECTRIC BARBARELLA" on one of their
less-successful albums "MEDAZZALAND.")
"DURAN.DURAN.NAME", therefore, is a genuinely registerable
and maintainable .NAME domain, even though it is not - as far as I
know! - any real person's name.
if your are the Queen of England, for example, you would be eligible
to use your Official Title, as you were clearly extremely
"commonly known by" this name! In such as case, it would
sensible and most interesting to register "THE.QUEEN.NAME"
or "THE.QUEENS.NAME." The same logic, therefore, also
applies to Prince Charles and both of his two sons, Prince William and
Prince Harry, who could legitimately register
"PRINCE.CHARLES.NAME", "PRINCE.WILLIAM.NAME" and
"PRINCE.HARRY.NAME", respectively, on the same basis.
regard to whether "SMITH.FAMILY.NAME" or
"THE.SMITH.NAME" conform strictly to the "first name .
last name . NAME" rule, clearly they do not.
in all honesty, who cares and does it really matter? If someone's name
is "SMITH", then surely it would be considerable reasonable
and in good faith for them to attempt and succeed in registering
"SMITH.FAMILY.NAME" or "THE.SMITH.NAME"?
assumption has been made that ICANN's authorisation for .NAME to be
used only for personal names in the "first name . last name .
NAME" format is surely flawed. Unless the Global Name Registry is
deceiving us all, they clearly state that other combinations of names
and word can be legitimately registered. Even within personal names,
we are told, domains such as "last name . first name . NAME"
or any alias, nickname or alter ego by which the person is
"commonly known" are equally acceptable and
"conform" to GNR's policy on .NAME Eligibility. Let us take
one example. Say you're nickname happens to be "DUMB ASS",
you are clearly not going to register "DUMB.ASS.NAME",
"A.DUMBASS.NAME" or "THE.DUMB-ASS.NAME." However,
that is not the point. The point is, you could legitimately register
either of these as a .NAME if you wished, without anyone being able to
"steal" or cancel you new domain name, providing you could
prove to some extent or other that "DUMB ASS" was an alias
you were commonly known by (and poor you, if it is!)
my opinion, whether one uses the word "A", "MY",
"OUR", "THE" is irrelevant. The reason being that
if you wished, for example, to register your nickname which happened
to be - for illustration - "TIGER", then clearly you would
not wish to register a meaningless domain name such as
"TI.GER.NAME." Quite clearly, you would in fact register
"A.TIGER.NAME", "MY.TIGER.NAME" or
"THE.TIGER.NAME." Indeed, much more likely, you would
cleverly register "DOWN.TIGER.NAME" or
course, I realise domain name purists would most likely baulk at such
suggestions, but if use of many of so-called "non-conforming"
domain names such as these could - potentially, at least - benefit the
internet community as a whole, then who are we to object?
objection is simply a sign of old-fashioned rigidity and an inflexible legalism
that encourages a regard for "the letter of the Law."
Generally speaking, this is - more often than not - lukewarmly or
coldly opposed to encouraging free speech and liberty within "the spirit of the
Law", which is always ultimately much more important, is it not? In my
opinion, this is where so many of ICANN's policies and methods have
gone wrong (and are still going wrong, to a lesser extent.) Such attitudes simply keep formality and legalism
entrenched in a rigid and inflexible system. Hardened advocates of
such a policy thereby often throw
common-sense to the wind. Clearly, the spirit of such matters is not
what they are concerned about. They seem to just wish to maintain the
Status Quo and not rock the boat of traditions and previously
Rules and Regulations limit creativity and inventiveness within the
.NAME registry, which I think would be a bad thing, if it were allowed
to prevail by either ICANN and/or GNR.
we should be encouraging Freedom of Speech, Information, Liberty,
Support and Usefulness and not insisting on letter-of-the-Law Legalism
or nit-picking for the sake of it simply because of an outdated list