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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Suing Yourself For Cybersquatting | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 27 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.
    How Long Will the US Legal House of Cards Stand ?
    by Anonymous on Saturday October 29 2005, @07:47PM (#16377)
    How Long Will the US Legal House of Cards Stand ?

    As ICANN continues to show the world how absurd
    the U.S. legal house of cards has become, one
    has to wonder what intelligent people in other
    countries really think.

    Canada appears to now stand on the side-lines
    with their collective mouths open, speechless
    and powerless. Where is the billion dollar .XXX
    lawsuit suing Cerf and ICANN off the planet ?

    Europe seems to finally be waking up to smell
    the bacon (or pork). Good for them. Unfortunately,
    handing everything to the ITU and the ISOC
    (imported from Vintonville Virginia) does not
    change things much.

    Asia Pacfic is largely silent except for the
    vocal crowd from down-under that dominates the
    ICANN scene. They do not seem concerned about
    the U.S. legal house of cards because it does not
    apply to them. They pick and choose and laugh
    all the way to their off-shore banks.

    Africa is rather quiet and once appeared to be a
    major target for colonization by the ICANN
    community. When ICANN found out there was not
    much money in Africa, their interest seemed to

    As major companies [Go Nuclear and Drop the .COM]
    the Verisign and ICANN house of cards will start
    to fall. People with their fortunes built on
    that pyramid scheme may slide a long way. It is
    ironic that it may be easier to obtain a trademark
    on a strong brand without the .COM. In fact, it
    would be true justice for the U.S. Government
    to decide that wide-spread usage **without the
    .COM** is a basic requirement for a strong mark.

    Maybe someone should patent domain names withOUT
    the .COM ?

    Welcome to the Root, what are these names worth?

    http:/ /Verisign/
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • go://AOL/ by Anonymous Sunday October 30 2005, @02:24AM
    Go Nuclear and Drop the .COM - USG Trademark Root
    by Anonymous on Sunday October 30 2005, @02:53AM (#16379)
    The USG plans to publish the official Trademark Root.
    It is a simple mapping of Mark to Domain Name.
    It does NOT assume that .COM is added, but for
    names not in the list that is what the DNS does.

    Famous-Name-Not-In-List --> Famous-Name-Not-In-List.COM

    Microsoft --> Microsoft.COM
    SEX --> SEX.DE
    WEB --> WEB.WS
    NEW --> NEW.NET

    The U.S. Government claims there are only going
    to be 5,000 Famous Brands or Marks. Apparently
    that number is written in some laws. Beyond
    5,000, the marks blur into just words and marks
    have to be distinctive. That is what helps to
    make them marks, and not just words.

    The new DNS gets a signed encrypted feed from
    the U.S. Government.

    The odd thing is that people with .COM names
    do not really want to be in the list because
    their names work, but they do not want someone
    else in the list mapped AWAY from their .COM
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Registrar vs. Registrar Mud Wrestling on ICANN.TV
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @06:07AM (#16381)
    From day-one, ICANN was designed by-lawyers
    for-lawyers. It is all designed around revenue,
    taxing the revenue streams, and then pitting the
    winners against each other.

    It is a common game for governments and lawyers.
    The participants forget they are being
    manipulated and used as the entertainment.

    Registrar vs. Registrar Mud Wrestling on ICANN.TV

    The invitation was sent to the Registrars list as an invitation to Registrars. This is of course a public list and some may feel that it is then appropriate to attend these calls without announcing themselves, and to record them without informing the participants that they are being recorded.

    Some of you may not have a problem with that. I do. IMHO, *ALL* participants on these calls should be announced. And *ALL* pariticipants should be informed whether or not such call is going to be recorded, or otherwise become part of some public record. Brett was on both calls. I don't know about the second call, but he neither announced himself or informed anyone, including the ICANN staff, that the call was being recorded.

    To complain about ICANN conducting itself in a transparent manner on one hand, and then support the secret recording of conversations on the other seems a little disingenuous to me.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    WEB is in the Root..!!!..Try it......http://WEB...
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @06:15AM (#16382)
    Try it, it meets the "ICANN Test".


    goes to


    The "ICANN Test" promoted by many ICANN Board
    members, is "If you can click on the name in your
    browser, it is in the name-space."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Get Ready For De-Peering - So Long Google and CERF
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @06:36AM (#16383)
    From SBC CEO Edward Whitacre:

    Q: How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google, MSN, Vonage, and others?

    A: How do you think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?

    The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo!or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Secret No-Bid .US Contract Renewal and 10% Raise
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @07:07AM (#16384)
    Secret No-Bid .US Contract Renewal and 10% Raise

    http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainna me/usca/usamend0015_10122005.pdf

    $5.50 to $6.00

    The Secret Deal is with Vinton Cerf's GOOGLE
    referred to as "partnership with an established
    provider of directory services and search engine

    Now of course, everything is "established
    providers". When NeuStar had ZERO experience
    with DNS, TLDs, etc. they were given TWO YEARS
    to start-up, while Vinton Cerf and ICANN
    restrained trade and prevented other companies
    from competing. Now, the "established" players
    are of course the only ones considered for
    the contracts, which are secretly bid, despite
    U.S. laws to the contrary. Laws ? What laws ?
    We are talking Northern Virginia law.

    Cerf's Up
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Why ICANN and Verisign are Running Scared
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @07:58AM (#16385)
    Here is a common mis-conception:

    "2. Verisign will operate .COM in perpetuity...without having to earn the right to do so. I'm sure that at some time in my lifetime, a new addressing scheme will come along to replace domain names. Until that happens, however, Verisign will be selling .COM services, in a virtual monopoly, without ever having to engage in a competive bidding process for the right to do so."

    ICANN and Verisign of course love the above
    mis-conception. It comes from people not able
    to grok what is coming next in the never-ending
    ICANN story.

    What's Next ?

    1. .COM does not go away
    2. .COM is a Thin-Registry (Verisign is Not Needed)
    3. ICANN will be funding people to Remove Verisign
    4. The .COM names then reside in the large Selected U.S. Registrars, that are working on this. They are the Registry.
    5. Other Registrars just become Resellers.

    The "ICANN Community" is the people ICANN funds.
    There is no shortage of people who will work
    for ICANN to remove Verisign. In the lawsuits,
    Verisign named some of them as Co-Conspirators.
    Now they will be called ICANN Staff. Some may
    come from Verisign.

    The .COM names will not go away, they will become
    more expensive and the ICANN Community will grow
    and grow. ICANN apologists should love that.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    US IRS Rules Prohibit Non-Profit Registries
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @05:46PM (#16387)
    US IRS Rules Prohibit Non-Profit Registries

    "not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit."

    Verisign and other Registries are for profit.

    ICANN operating the .NET Registry as a
    non-profit is the SAME business as Verisign and
    other Registries. The non-profit ISOC operating
    the .ORG Registry is also engaged in a business
    normally carried on for profit.

    Normally, a non-profit like ICANN would be set
    up to benefit the for-profit Registries and
    they would see that benefit and join voluntarily
    and make donations or pay dues. Per transaction
    fees move ICANN and the ISOC into the same
    business as the for profit companies.

    There are reasons the rules and laws are set up
    the way they are. If all companies violated the
    laws and operated like ICANN and the ISOC, then
    they would all claim to be non-profit. ICANN
    and the ISOC likely do not care if they lose
    their non-profit status because the insiders
    are effectively the shareholders and draining
    off all revenues as salaries and expenses. They
    may view it as a moot point, they would have no
    profit as a non-profit. They prefer to dupe the
    public into thinking they are public benefit
    non-profit companies which is not the case.
    They are private benefit for-profit companies
    and the carefully watch their revenues to stay
    under the radar. If revenues rise, they clone
    off another company to launder part of the funds
    and then lock that company into their pyramid

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/n onprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html

    "A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    XXX in the Root and ReDirects to U.S. Government ?
    by Anonymous on Monday October 31 2005, @06:34PM (#16388)
    XXX in the Root and ReDirects to U.S. Government ?


    resolves to the following:


    "Robots Beware: indiscriminate automated downloads from this site are not permitted."
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Tony "the Rat" Re-Emerges From His Verisign Sewer
    by Anonymous on Wednesday November 02 2005, @08:11PM (#16394)
    Have you ever wondered where the U.S. Government
    officials develop their views about anyone speaking
    out as being a security threat [to Verisign's cash
    cows] ???

    Tony "the Rat" Re-Emerges From His Verisign Sewer

    http://scrawford.net/courses/Lukasik-Rutk owski_FCCletter.pdf

    Who will the ex-DARPA insiders have arrested
    next for pointing out the dirty tricks Verisign
    funds ?

    The terms of engagement appear to involve McCarthy-esque smears of lawyers and companies who dare to question the legitimacy of any act taken in the name of "security."

    Job Security at Verisign (and ICANN) is Job #1
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Google Secretly Decides to Defer .XXX Discussions
    by Anonymous on Thursday November 03 2005, @05:42AM (#16398)
    .XXX is in the root, operated by the ISOC insiders. (see New.Net)

    Google's Vinton Cerf decides to defer discussion
    of .XXX to push it out-of-sight and out-of-mind.

    The U.S. Government sees that as a good solution
    and so does the ICANN Board when they are informed
    about what THEY have decided. Yes, the ICANN
    Board is told by Vinton Cerf what they have

    Hello All:

    I have received a number of inquiries from registrars regarding the
    status of the ICM Registry application. I have been advised by the Chair
    that the Board has decided to defer this issue until the Vancouver
    meeting to allow the GAC and other stakeholders within the community to

    Best regards,

    Michael D. Palage
    [ 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