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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 115 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.
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by Anonymous on Friday June 07 2002, @02:27AM (#6927)
    My guess is that .name is an extremely anemic TLD. Leave them alone, they need the money.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by Anonymous on Friday June 07 2002, @03:06AM (#6929)
    The response from GNR utterly fails to address the important issues raised by Ben and only seems to encourage the type of conducted illustrated by AD2000D and others. GNR fails to effectively deal with blatant squatting in the .name space, and simply throws up their hands saying, in effect, it's just too difficult to police our name space.

    That's wrong. If an underfunded college student in the US can uncover all the mysterious-looking registrations and identify examples of squatting, then why can't the registry in charge of maintaining .name do the same exact thing?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday June 07 2002, @04:10AM (#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

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by Anonymous on Friday June 07 2002, @04:49AM (#6934)
    I'll bet Ben feels silly after realizing that all those registrations were legitimate after all.

    "...families are using .name for web sites..."
    say.myfucking.name: As in the case of the Myfucking family, with siblings Say and Whats. (They are probably distant relatives of the Mymotherfucking family.)

    ".name was designed for individuals."
    Individuals such as the United Nations (united.nations.name), the Green Bay Packers (greenbay.packers.name), and the FIFA World Cup (fifa.worldcup.name).

    "...the diversity of cultures and naming conventions around the world..."
    baconwhopper.baconwhopper.name: Possibly a Native American of the Sioux tribe who earned his moniker by hitting a pig twice..

    "...father might register all five of his children and his wife..."
    porn.sex.name et al: Mr. Sex is obviously Morman, because he registered names for more than 30 of his children:
    porn, lolita, safe, lesbian, love, gay, wow, xxx, marketing, hot, lasvegas, boy, pussy, bet, sexpia, live, cyber, oral, africa, teen, free, movie, joy, queen, ass, king, korea, and name.

    "a net savvy individual might give all of his/her friends .name registrations for Christmas..."
    Perhaps SteveFinberg bought early Christmas presents for his 260 closest Christian friends, including Pope Paul, Saint Peter, Jesus, Moses, the Prophet Mohammed, Gautama Buddha, Princess Amadala, Krusty the Clown, Vlad the Impaler, and Santa Claus.

    "...defensive commercial registrations that ...[do not] undermine the concept that .name was designed for individuals."
    Employees of New York based Gyro sandwich shop jfkdjsakdj (jfkdjsakdj.lkdjklsjfk.name) are now safe from cybersquatters.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: GNR Says Squatters Are Welcome
    by Anonymous on Friday June 07 2002, @06:50AM (#6936)
    The response from GNR basically says: we don't care what people register, because we can't tell what is a real personal name or not. Come one, come all, step right up and give us some money! Cybersquatters are welcome here! Step right up get your .name!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Friday June 07 2002, @07:22AM (#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
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Told You So
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07 2002, @09:35AM (#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!!)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    So where' my public apology then?
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07 2002, @10:15AM (#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*)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    HURRAH FOR GNR !
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07 2002, @10:18AM (#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...)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Friday June 07 2002, @10:33AM (#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
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Ben's use of WhoIs Data
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07 2002, @11:29AM (#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.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Squatting 101
    by Anonymous on Friday June 07 2002, @11:54AM (#6971)
    Adrian, you're wrong once again.

    The UDRP was designed specifically to stop the type of conduct you have engaged in. So was the ACPA, 15 USC 1125(d). I case you've never heard of it, I'll give you a snippet: "A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--

    (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
    (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
    (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
    (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark.....

    You seem to fit the bill buddy, I mean Addy.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: AMERICA ONLINE, ICANN, NAF AND UDRP PANEL
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Friday June 07 2002, @07:59PM (#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.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    No More Controversial Famous Name Registrations
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Saturday June 08 2002, @01:41PM (#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
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Global Name Registry Response to Edelman Study
    by Anonymous on Sunday June 09 2002, @09:05PM (#7038)
    Holy excrement, this jerk is worse than Jeff Williams!

    Shut the hell up already!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Something else used to be here
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Monday January 20 2003, @01:10PM (#10993)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    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.
    [ 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