Slashdot Mirror

It's beyond a trademark, at least in USA. It's specially protected by Act of Congress. That's what the 36 USC 380 in addition to the marca registrada on the rings, word "Olympic*", phrase "altius fortius*" etc. The rationale is that the activities of the USOC, said to be primarily that of training athletes, is not financed with federal funds, as it is in most other countries, and therefore freed the USOC to raise money however it saw fit. Congress has protected other trademarks such as the Red Cross, Daughters of the American Revolution, etc, see here: but none so openly profitable as the Olympic Committee.

There was a reply to the letter mentioned in the lead story, which outlines many good reasons for the failure of .NAME, including the main one that prevented me from getting a .NAME account: cost.

GNR's Claims invalid

I looked at the sales site that Global Name Registry Ltd started to try to sell .NAME, and it has basically the same problem (they want $20/yr for a .NAME registration), so I can only conclude that they are not listening. I predict they will fail. Whether or not they make it, I'm not spending $20/yr for a .NAME.

I think this post summarizes the outstanding problems well.

Two points from that post:

- .NAME is a TLD targetted for individuals, but priced for organizations, even if .NAME DNS requests should be far less common than .COM lookups.

- .NAME in your e-mail let spammers easily detect individuals, merely by looking in a phone book and putting an @ between the forename and surname, and finally applying .NAME.

Actually, Verisign will be implementing a Redemption Grace Period for com/net domains beginning on January 25, 2003. Domains that are deleted by the Registrar are given an extra 30 days to be rescued by the prior registrant.

For more info, see the post by Verisign here.

Oh, VeriSign's just mad because ICANN rejected their WLS proposal and

"ICANN leaders have "very, very creatively interpreted their authority to get into areas they were never authorized to get into,"

sounds suspciously like VeriSign's own business practices...

Their both just giant evil entities anyway.

What positive things did ICANN did so far?

Let me mention the issue where NSI and some other players not release the expired domains back to the pool. What did ICANN do about it?

Check out these links

NSI abuse

Verisign's status

.int (which was created fairly casually, according to this story) is still smaller than .museum, and .int has a 13-year head start.

.mil seems to be pretty small, too.

The problem with this is that .org was never intended for non-profit organizations, it was intended as the catch all domain for those who didn't fit into the others.

Further, the enforcement of such a provision would drive the cost and prices of domains up into the hundreds of dollars per year.

Lastly, when the TLD has been in use, and has millions of registered domain names in use, for as many years as .org has been running in this fashion, it would be grossly inappropriate to change the policy now. The harm to existing domain owners alone is a reason why this particular move should be blocked.

There are some excellent comments in the DNSO GA list for March 2001 that describe the problems with this change in policy in detail. Please take the time to read them before jumping to the conclusion that this change would be a good thing.

The archives are here, make sure you fast forward up to March 2001 (they start in Nov 2000).

First, it looks like you are supposed to join the General Assembly of the DNSO. You do that by signing up for any of their mailing lists. An easy, low volume one is their announcement list: majordomo@dnso.org with the words subscribe announce in the body of your message.

You then go to list of nominees to review the nominees.

You can also read a statement from James Love, since he looks like a good candidate. His page was linked to from the Civil Society Internet Forum, which seems to have lots of good information about stuff having to do with internet governance... so you might want to check them out as well.

It then looks like the only real "vote" you have is to endorse a candidate and then the Names Council makes the final decision. See the instructions for endorsing a candidate to endorse the candidate of your choice.

Somehow, that wasn't as easy as I would have hoped. At least it didn't take a month of waiting in the mail for a PIN number to arrive. Have fun :)

First, it looks like you are supposed to join the General Assembly of the DNSO. You do that by signing up for any of their mailing lists. An easy, low volume one is their announcement list: majordomo@dnso.org with the words subscribe announce in the body of your message.

You then go to list of nominees to review the nominees.

You can also read a statement from James Love, since he looks like a good candidate. His page was linked to from the Civil Society Internet Forum, which seems to have lots of good information about stuff having to do with internet governance... so you might want to check them out as well.

It then looks like the only real "vote" you have is to endorse a candidate and then the Names Council makes the final decision. See the instructions for endorsing a candidate to endorse the candidate of your choice.

Somehow, that wasn't as easy as I would have hoped. At least it didn't take a month of waiting in the mail for a PIN number to arrive. Have fun :)

First, it looks like you are supposed to join the General Assembly of the DNSO. You do that by signing up for any of their mailing lists. An easy, low volume one is their announcement list: majordomo@dnso.org with the words subscribe announce in the body of your message.

You then go to list of nominees to review the nominees.

You can also read a statement from James Love, since he looks like a good candidate. His page was linked to from the Civil Society Internet Forum, which seems to have lots of good information about stuff having to do with internet governance... so you might want to check them out as well.

It then looks like the only real "vote" you have is to endorse a candidate and then the Names Council makes the final decision. See the instructions for endorsing a candidate to endorse the candidate of your choice.

Somehow, that wasn't as easy as I would have hoped. At least it didn't take a month of waiting in the mail for a PIN number to arrive. Have fun :)

Largely overlooked is the fact that the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) of ICANN is also electing one board member.

The DNSO is arguable the most significant part of ICANN because it now makes the decisions whether to open up new gTLD's, and what standards are used worldwide to deprive people of their domain names when challenged by trademark owners. (In case you haven't noticed, the press increasingly refers to the process of hijacking domain names as being maintained by the "United Nations". It isn't -- it's ICANN, and it is run by trademark owners.)

The race in the DNSO is lively because it pits James Love, a consumer advocate, against entrenched trademark interests. Go to www.dnso.org and do review all the candidates.

They advises the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System. I joined working group 'C' last year and participated in the debate over new TLDs. Not a whole lot came out of it, but at least I tried.

I think that /. readers should pay attention to ICANN, and what Esther Dyson and her cronies are up to. If you don't stand up and speak your mind, companies like Micro$oft, MCI, and AT&T would be happy to do it for you. We need a larger representation of non-commercial users.

While you're at it, you might want to join the Individual Domain Name Owners' Constituency too.

They advises the ICANN Board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System. I joined working group 'C' last year and participated in the debate over new TLDs. Not a whole lot came out of it, but at least I tried.

I think that /. readers should pay attention to ICANN, and what Esther Dyson and her cronies are up to. If you don't stand up and speak your mind, companies like Micro$oft, MCI, and AT&T would be happy to do it for you. We need a larger representation of non-commercial users.

While you're at it, you might want to join the Individual Domain Name Owners' Constituency too.

Speaking as a member of WG-B, that "Sunrise + 20" proposal was most certainly NOT from "WG-B". It was from the Chair of WG-B, and from the TM lobby. WG-B wholeweartedly opposed it. If you look at the next-to-final report (the one that was originally the final report, until Palage decided that the final report should say something other than the final report did), you'll find many comments opposed to the Sunrise+20. You'll find alternatives.

Sunrise+20 was a back-room, outside-the-process idea cooked up to benefit registries and TM holders. Just like the UDRP is, which was a direct product of WG-A, and was achieved in the same manner: backroom deals, pushed through as the product of the WG, but without WG approval, and ratified by the DNSO names council against the loud outcry of the participants.

I want it to be known far and wide that the result of WG-B, and certain "results" of WG-C (to add new TLDs to the roots) are NOT the product of the WG themselves, but are products of several individuals who think the ICANN process exists to serve their specific interests.

Go read the archives, and see for yourselves. Don't sample them; read through them ALL. WG-A is supposed to be here, but mysteriously, all but a few messages have vanished. I've just noticed this, and am prepared to raise hell about it.

WG-B is here. Read through the archives, particularly at the end. Note that those who are not TM attorneys participating to protect their corporate interests are decrying the entire process. Something you'd see in the WG-A archives as well, if they still existed.

WG-C from Nov. 1999 to present.

Go. Read. Educate yourself. Make up your own mind. And if you think there's something wrong going on here, for crying out loud, GET INVOLVED!

Most of this crap has occurred because of the corporate dominance within ICANN.

Speaking as a member of WG-B, that "Sunrise + 20" proposal was most certainly NOT from "WG-B". It was from the Chair of WG-B, and from the TM lobby. WG-B wholeweartedly opposed it. If you look at the next-to-final report (the one that was originally the final report, until Palage decided that the final report should say something other than the final report did), you'll find many comments opposed to the Sunrise+20. You'll find alternatives.

Sunrise+20 was a back-room, outside-the-process idea cooked up to benefit registries and TM holders. Just like the UDRP is, which was a direct product of WG-A, and was achieved in the same manner: backroom deals, pushed through as the product of the WG, but without WG approval, and ratified by the DNSO names council against the loud outcry of the participants.

I want it to be known far and wide that the result of WG-B, and certain "results" of WG-C (to add new TLDs to the roots) are NOT the product of the WG themselves, but are products of several individuals who think the ICANN process exists to serve their specific interests.

Go read the archives, and see for yourselves. Don't sample them; read through them ALL. WG-A is supposed to be here, but mysteriously, all but a few messages have vanished. I've just noticed this, and am prepared to raise hell about it.

WG-B is here. Read through the archives, particularly at the end. Note that those who are not TM attorneys participating to protect their corporate interests are decrying the entire process. Something you'd see in the WG-A archives as well, if they still existed.

WG-C from Nov. 1999 to present.

Go. Read. Educate yourself. Make up your own mind. And if you think there's something wrong going on here, for crying out loud, GET INVOLVED!

Most of this crap has occurred because of the corporate dominance within ICANN.

Speaking as a member of WG-B, that "Sunrise + 20" proposal was most certainly NOT from "WG-B". It was from the Chair of WG-B, and from the TM lobby. WG-B wholeweartedly opposed it. If you look at the next-to-final report (the one that was originally the final report, until Palage decided that the final report should say something other than the final report did), you'll find many comments opposed to the Sunrise+20. You'll find alternatives.

Sunrise+20 was a back-room, outside-the-process idea cooked up to benefit registries and TM holders. Just like the UDRP is, which was a direct product of WG-A, and was achieved in the same manner: backroom deals, pushed through as the product of the WG, but without WG approval, and ratified by the DNSO names council against the loud outcry of the participants.

I want it to be known far and wide that the result of WG-B, and certain "results" of WG-C (to add new TLDs to the roots) are NOT the product of the WG themselves, but are products of several individuals who think the ICANN process exists to serve their specific interests.

Go read the archives, and see for yourselves. Don't sample them; read through them ALL. WG-A is supposed to be here, but mysteriously, all but a few messages have vanished. I've just noticed this, and am prepared to raise hell about it.

WG-B is here. Read through the archives, particularly at the end. Note that those who are not TM attorneys participating to protect their corporate interests are decrying the entire process. Something you'd see in the WG-A archives as well, if they still existed.

WG-C from Nov. 1999 to present.

Go. Read. Educate yourself. Make up your own mind. And if you think there's something wrong going on here, for crying out loud, GET INVOLVED!

Most of this crap has occurred because of the corporate dominance within ICANN.

Speaking as a member of WG-B, that "Sunrise + 20" proposal was most certainly NOT from "WG-B". It was from the Chair of WG-B, and from the TM lobby. WG-B wholeweartedly opposed it. If you look at the next-to-final report (the one that was originally the final report, until Palage decided that the final report should say something other than the final report did), you'll find many comments opposed to the Sunrise+20. You'll find alternatives.

Sunrise+20 was a back-room, outside-the-process idea cooked up to benefit registries and TM holders. Just like the UDRP is, which was a direct product of WG-A, and was achieved in the same manner: backroom deals, pushed through as the product of the WG, but without WG approval, and ratified by the DNSO names council against the loud outcry of the participants.

I want it to be known far and wide that the result of WG-B, and certain "results" of WG-C (to add new TLDs to the roots) are NOT the product of the WG themselves, but are products of several individuals who think the ICANN process exists to serve their specific interests.

Go read the archives, and see for yourselves. Don't sample them; read through them ALL. WG-A is supposed to be here, but mysteriously, all but a few messages have vanished. I've just noticed this, and am prepared to raise hell about it.

WG-B is here. Read through the archives, particularly at the end. Note that those who are not TM attorneys participating to protect their corporate interests are decrying the entire process. Something you'd see in the WG-A archives as well, if they still existed.

WG-C from Nov. 1999 to present.

Go. Read. Educate yourself. Make up your own mind. And if you think there's something wrong going on here, for crying out loud, GET INVOLVED!

Most of this crap has occurred because of the corporate dominance within ICANN.

I submitted this article last week, but it didn't make it through. Since it's an ICANN subject, I'll just attach it here.

News.com had an article last week about the "Sunrise + 20" proposal from ICANN's Working Group B. It would allow trademark owners to register their mark and up to 20 variations on that mark in the new TLDs that ICANN is proposing -- before the general public has a chance to register a single domain. With over 1 million trademarks registered in the United States alone, the math works out to a possible 20+ million domains being registered before Joe Average gets a shot. (There are 17.5 million .com, .net, and .org total right now.)

The Working Group B comments regarding the proposal were overwhelmingly supportive -- not too suprising considering it's comprised of mostly trademark lawyers representing folks like Time Warner, Dow Jones & Co., Kodak, Bell Atlantic, Major League Baseball, Intel, 3M, the Motion Picture Association, Viacom, etc.

Every time a DNS/ICANN related story comes up, myself and several others post relevant information about how you can get involved, how you can participate, and what you should be doing if you don't like or don't agree with the way these policies are being developed.
Now, here's another story, stating the truth of what I and others have been saying for $DEITY knows how long now.
I'll make this very simple:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT!
And that doesn't mean joining the ICANN At-Large membership. It means getting involved with the Domain name Service Organization, specifically Working Groups B and C, and working to get rid of business-centric, short-sighted policies before they're enacted. In the end, it all comes down to numbers: Right now, the corporate lawyers and the businesspeople have a stronger lobby within ICANN than the individuals and the end-users do.
Don't be fooled, you will NOT have any impact on policy from the At-Large Membership. The proper venue for activism is within the DNSO working groups.
See this page for the mailing list archives of the working groups, and instructions on how to join. It's as easy as subscribing to a mailing list.
Unless and until you actually get off your ass and do something to change things, you're just going to be pissing in the wind. Slashdot is a wonderful forum, but all of you should be voicing your concerns where they matter, in the Working Groups, instead of here.

Every time a DNS/ICANN related story comes up, myself and several others post relevant information about how you can get involved, how you can participate, and what you should be doing if you don't like or don't agree with the way these policies are being developed.
Now, here's another story, stating the truth of what I and others have been saying for $DEITY knows how long now.
I'll make this very simple:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS, GET INVOLVED AND CHANGE IT!
And that doesn't mean joining the ICANN At-Large membership. It means getting involved with the Domain name Service Organization, specifically Working Groups B and C, and working to get rid of business-centric, short-sighted policies before they're enacted. In the end, it all comes down to numbers: Right now, the corporate lawyers and the businesspeople have a stronger lobby within ICANN than the individuals and the end-users do.
Don't be fooled, you will NOT have any impact on policy from the At-Large Membership. The proper venue for activism is within the DNSO working groups.
See this page for the mailing list archives of the working groups, and instructions on how to join. It's as easy as subscribing to a mailing list.
Unless and until you actually get off your ass and do something to change things, you're just going to be pissing in the wind. Slashdot is a wonderful forum, but all of you should be voicing your concerns where they matter, in the Working Groups, instead of here.

does anyone here ever keep up on dnso.org? they, like many organizations, have been proposing new gTLDs for quite some time now... however, they're also affiliated with ICANN, so their suggestions seem to be a bit more... possible.

all new gTLDs that have been proposed are mentioned along the lines of reference to ethnic groups, as in "countries without borders" (yes, geography class is all coming back to you now...)

i personally would love to see new domains introduced, but they will more than likely continue to fall under a dot3 or dot2 type of standard...

-barton

First, a word about register.com. You may want to read through the DNSO archives, the IFWP list, and the DOMAIN-POLICY archives to see what register.com has been up to, particularly regarding the single-letter domains.

You may also want to have a look at their registration agreement, particularly the bit on information ownership. They own all your contact information, and can do whatever they want with it.

Note the section in 6d above where they explicitly say you give them the right to use your information for targeted marketing.

Others aren't any better. BulkRegister has been phone-spamming people with completely automated unsolicited phone calls, in violation of US State and Federal law.

Joker.com and the other current and past CORE registrars have had significant problems in the past, and CORE is losing registrars right and left.

Most of the registrars have had significant and in some cases highly-publicised problems interacting using the SRS -- the Shared Registry System, resulting in things like aol.com's ownership being transferred to an individual (and later changed back), and other domain names not owned by big companies not being so lucky in having their ownership info corrected.

There's a problem with CORE registrars as well...several years ago, when people were once again trying to get new Top-Level Domains (TLDs), CORE managed to have a set of 7 TLD agreed upon. CORE registrars were pre-selling registrations in these 7 TLDs last year. They've now stopped, but should those & go active, it's still unknown whether or not anyone will have a fair shot at registering within them due to these pre-sells.

I'd personally recommend becoming a member of the OpenSRS project, and being your own registrar.

If you can't or won't do that, then do the following: Find and take the time to READ each registrar's Domain Dispute Policy and Registration Agreement, and think of what it means to you if your domain name ownership is challenged. The challenges are mushrooming, and all signs point to corporations getting whatever they want. Go see the resolved UDRP cases to get a feeling for how the wind is currently blowing.

1) You've ALWAYS been able to participate in ICANN. Every time someone's posted anything related to domain policy, I've practically begged people to get involved, join working groups, and work to ensure things like the ICANN UDRP were fair to individuals. All you've ever had to do to get involved was to subscribe to a DNSO mailing list. (You can't join the ASO, but don't feel bad -- they're not letting ISPs join either.)

2) You will not legally be a "member" of anything. ICANN has gone to great lengths to ensure there is no such thing as a legal membership. In fact, they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to ensure that there's little if any accountability within ICANN at all.

3) You will not get to elect board members. You will get to elect a handful of people, who will then CHOOSE the 9 new board members, and only then with the consent of the existing board.

4) Did I mention that you've ALWAYS had the ability to participate in ICANN and have your voice heard?

5) If you join the At Large Membership without informing yourself first, you'll only be harming EVERYONE. Take some time and learn what's been going on before you jump in and implicitly support what ICANN's been up to:

Go read how WIPO is using the ICANN UDRP to enfore implicit beliefs that the Net is nothing but the web, only businesses should own domain names, and only trademark owners should have rights to those names: WIPO dispute decisions

Go read how the UDRP was created in the DNSO WG-A. Go read how corporations want to prohibit you from registering any domain name that contains a trademarked substring (e.g., whereitsatt.com contains ATT) in WG-B. Go read how members of WG-B are trying everything they can to stop the rollout of new top-level domains in WG-C. Go see how the DNSO general assembly deteriorated, destroyed itself and was censored...the GA is the precursor of the ICANN At-Large membership, and should serve as a warning to any considering joining: DNSO Archives

In short, go read up on the history of ICANN and domain name policy before you lend your name to it. Rest assured, Mike Roberts is going to take every opportunity to hold up your membership as implicit support for what ICANN's doing. And you should think long and hard about whether you do support what ICANN's been up to. It may be trendy and cool to bash NSI, but to support ICANN just because they're not NSI may be the poorest decision you've ever made.

Go see for yourself what ICANN is before you lend your name to it.

1) You've ALWAYS been able to participate in ICANN. Every time someone's posted anything related to domain policy, I've practically begged people to get involved, join working groups, and work to ensure things like the ICANN UDRP were fair to individuals. All you've ever had to do to get involved was to subscribe to a DNSO mailing list. (You can't join the ASO, but don't feel bad -- they're not letting ISPs join either.)

2) You will not legally be a "member" of anything. ICANN has gone to great lengths to ensure there is no such thing as a legal membership. In fact, they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal counsel to ensure that there's little if any accountability within ICANN at all.

3) You will not get to elect board members. You will get to elect a handful of people, who will then CHOOSE the 9 new board members, and only then with the consent of the existing board.

4) Did I mention that you've ALWAYS had the ability to participate in ICANN and have your voice heard?

5) If you join the At Large Membership without informing yourself first, you'll only be harming EVERYONE. Take some time and learn what's been going on before you jump in and implicitly support what ICANN's been up to:

Go read how WIPO is using the ICANN UDRP to enfore implicit beliefs that the Net is nothing but the web, only businesses should own domain names, and only trademark owners should have rights to those names: WIPO dispute decisions

Go read how the UDRP was created in the DNSO WG-A. Go read how corporations want to prohibit you from registering any domain name that contains a trademarked substring (e.g., whereitsatt.com contains ATT) in WG-B. Go read how members of WG-B are trying everything they can to stop the rollout of new top-level domains in WG-C. Go see how the DNSO general assembly deteriorated, destroyed itself and was censored...the GA is the precursor of the ICANN At-Large membership, and should serve as a warning to any considering joining: DNSO Archives

In short, go read up on the history of ICANN and domain name policy before you lend your name to it. Rest assured, Mike Roberts is going to take every opportunity to hold up your membership as implicit support for what ICANN's doing. And you should think long and hard about whether you do support what ICANN's been up to. It may be trendy and cool to bash NSI, but to support ICANN just because they're not NSI may be the poorest decision you've ever made.

Go see for yourself what ICANN is before you lend your name to it.

The intellectual property groups, like the RIAA, MPAA, attorneys for companies like AT&T, are working right now to stop new Top Level Domains, like .web, .biz, .box, etc, because they want rules in place that let them suspend someone's domain name rights without having to go meet the legal standards that a court filing would force them to. I am on the Workgroup C group of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN, and this workgroup is charged with coming up with a proposal or proposals for ICANN to consider in creating new Top Level Domains. The Intellectual Properties advocates have been fighting VERY hard to block any results, despite the fact that the two largest and most contentious camps in this process have been able to find common ground to move forward with 6-10 new top level domains.

Corporate America needs to be taught a lesson that they can't assert rights they don't have, or try and abuse the rights they have, to trample the rights of others. A win by etoy over eToys would go a long way to putting them on notice.

--
William X. Walsh
william@dso.net

Err...not true. The main reason no new gTLDs have been rolled out is that the Intellectual Property (IP) and Trademark (TM) interests are scared of cybersquatting, and refuse to pay what it would cost to police these new gTLDs for possible infringement. This is troublesome, because IP and TM law require the famous mark holder to bear the cost of protecting their marks. They want to shift that cost to the registry and/or registrar, who will of course pass it on to the domain name owner.

They keep asking for things like unilateral, full, standardized, searchable access to all registrant data, enforced verifiable contact info, heavily restrictive and punitive Dispute Resolution Policies, etc.

NetSol may suck, but in this instance, it's not NetSol that's creating the vacuum. It's the people who own famous names and marks, who keep pushing for more than anyone is willing to give. Net result: No new gTLDs.

If you're concerned, stop whining and get involved. The ICANN Domain Name Service Organization is acting on these very issues right now.

The Individual Domain Name Owners' Association is fighting to ensure things like equity in dispute resolution and protection of your personal information are present in the future worldwide DNS system.

Among the topics being considered by ICANN? Whether or not individuals (as opposed to trademark owners) should be allowed to own domain names. Whether or not domain dispute policies should require court proceedings, with the loser paying all fees. Whether the domain name in dispute should be turned over to the trademark holder before the dispute resolution process is completed.

And all of this is being decided by a group of non-representative, non-elected lawyers, businesspeople, and others who stand to gain financially from such decisions. to this date, they have refused to allow a constituency of individual, non-commercial, non-organizational domain name owners to have representation in their proceedings.

The working groups deciding these issues are chaired by hand-picked members of the Domain Names Council, instead of elected by the members of the working groups.

The Domain Names council is stacked with officers of ISOC, CORE, and advisory board members from the gTLD-MoU advisory boards, all of whom have a decided financial interest in the outcome of certain decisions.

Decisions are made without any form of formal voting procedure, without regard to fairness, and without consideration for the group's lack of legitimacy and adequate representation. They are attempting to ramrod through a set of decisions before their own mandate requires them to replace the appointed officials with elected ones.

And they're doing it all in the name of the "net community".

Check the DNSO website to find the archives of the various mailing lists where this is occurring.

Check this link for a statement in which the chair of the gTLD-MoU proposes capture of the DNSO.

Check the Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency page if you'd like to get involved.