Slashdot Mirror

How the fuck does this qualify as insightful? Let's look at it again, in instant replay:

"If you let the domain expire, and someone else registered it, I say you're going to have a hard time *taking it back* from its now-rightful owner."

No, he's not going to have a hard time taking it back, because according to ICANN's UDRP, these other people are acting in bad faith-- they are not the "rightful owner" that you mistakenly assumed. The rules are easy to search, and are here: http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-rules-24oct99.htm. But I'll quote it for you, since I'm sure no one will actually go read it.

Describe, in accordance with the Policy, the grounds on which the complaint is made including, in particular,

(1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and

(3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith


So, seems pretty clear-cut here. Gee, you think the porn site's name isn't confusingly similar? You think they have legitimate interests in the name? You think they somehow weren't registering in bad faith?

As long as I'm apparently the only person who bothered to do some research on this first, including the original submitter, why don't I point out the procedures spelled out in detail here. Note that the single largest roadblock for a small non-profit is going to be the $1500 fee. Is the domain name worth $1500 to you? If so, read up, and you'll probably get it after a few forms and a money transfer. If not, use one of the gajillion other names available to you that's easier to remember than kzhszdfwelsdafjsdfzlldfm.org or whatever.

And don't mind the naysayers -- the UDRP doesn't say jack about whether or not you *used* to own the name, but it spells out in fairly clear terms the grounds upon which a challenge can be brought. In relevant part ("you" and "your" refer to the party you want to file against):

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

And don't mind the naysayers -- the UDRP doesn't say jack about whether or not you *used* to own the name, but it spells out in fairly clear terms the grounds upon which a challenge can be brought. In relevant part ("you" and "your" refer to the party you want to file against):

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.

Disgusted with ICANN,
-Tammie

PS Also take a look at this article submitted last Wednesday that talks about the same thing.

I can almost guarantee that one letter and two letter second level domains will be forbidden, as described in the Proposed Unsponsored TLD Agreement: Appendix K.

i think it should be mentioned that the whole .info

pre-registration process (the "sunrise" period for

trademark holders) has resulted in a profound mess.

highlights include music.info pre-registered with a

corea trademark for "dumping", analsex.info with a

morocco trademark for "sandip singh sandhu", or

newyork.info obtained by the holder of the u.s.

trademark no. "e.g. 12345". dozens of domains were

given to the holder(s) of an albanian patent for

"unknown", issued on january 2, 2040.

during "sunrise", one individual from austria has

pre-registered no less than 4981 .info-domains.

another guy has not only successfully filed

trademarks for lawyers.info and attorneys.info, but

also for blowjobs.info and teensex.info. other

domain names, like hawaii.info, have been taken over by registrars for "testing purposes".

if you want more info on .info:

icann forum

the internet challenge

It looks like you can get around it if you have a multipart last name, though, like osama@bin.laden.name. Speaking of which, did they not even stop to coinsider cultures that don't have a distinct given_name+surname format?

-Ed

All your qa'eda are belong to US!

MAY 1, 2001: ICANN FORUM

AUGUST 31, 2001: ICANN FORUM

Solution to trademark and domain problems is at WIPO.org.uk

MAY 1, 2001: ICANN FORUM

AUGUST 31, 2001: ICANN FORUM

Solution to trademark and domain problems is at WIPO.org.uk

I've been an At-Large member since ICANN started the project. Although I am on the announcement list I haven't received a single e-mail about meetings, initiatives or what-have-you in months (at a minimum).

I, for one, am tired of Esther Dyson's self-righteous elitist cronies telling the rest of us how the Internet should be.

I was skeptical but had hopes when the At Large initiative started. I've now come to see it as it is: a sham that gives the illusion of openness and the air of democratic legitimacy to those who willingly turn a blind eye to the autocratic, business-as-usual attitude of the ICANN Board. By the way, here's the text of a relevant rejected post I sent in:

Studies: Public Participation in Internet Policy (Your Rights Online, Internet)

The New York Times informs us that two new reports from ICANN and the Center for Democracy and Technology both say that more public participation is required in policy-making. DUH! The ICANN report says only domain name holders should have rights, while the CDT report says the process should be open to all interested parties. We'll see what happens on Nov. 14 when the reports are tabled at the next ICANN meeting.

It will be interesting to see if any australians challenge this action by filing an ICANN reconsideration request during the next

So let's get this straight: Verisign charges 5 times more than other registrars do....

Um... no
NetworkSolutions charges $35 a year, which is between 1.5 and 3.5 times what most others charge
(if you want to comparison shop, check out http://www.internic.com/regist.html)
$7 per year is not very likely, since all registrars still have to pay Network Solutions $6 per name.
(as per http://www.icann.org/nsi/nsi-rla-04nov99.htm sec. 5.2 b)
Personally, I think $1 per year per domain name would be far more appropriate.

I think these allegations of slamming are just a red herring - notice they do not mention which registrars are supposedly slamming. You'd think that some of them would at least have a different percentage of slams, even if they were all corrupt.

VeriSign is claiming that their competitors are blatantly defrauding them, and that the evidence provided to VeriSign of the customers wanting to switch is falsified. Looks to me as if VeriSign is the one whose lying. Their analysis of the evidence (as presented in the letter) is bogus.

one provided copies of several e-mails described as having come from more than 20 different customers-all using exactly the same wording and type font; and another provided identical e-mails, all dated after the VeriSign Registrar's request, and claimed that they showed prior customer intent to transfer

Now, must ask VeriSign, how many ways are there to word a registrar switch? "Dear Verisign - we are dumping your ass for a better registrar?". No, they're all probably a standard business letter layout, with a body of:

Dear $ACCOUNTMANAGER
We are switching to using $REGSTRAR as our domain name registrar.
Thank you
$CUSTOMERNAME

There aren't that many ways to do it. In fact, if a large ISP was switching a lot of customers (read the main article), the wording should be the same. And as for same font, umm, wouldn't that be more dependant on the person printing them out? Last time I checked, email didn't embed the font (unless you use html, and not even always then), and that the font would be the same if they were printed by the same person. Nothing unusual at all in that. Hey, here's an open offer to VeriSign: 5 bucks if the font isn't Courier. My $5 is perfectly safe...

Now, the second set of emails being exactly identical is a bit erie, but as I said above, there are two good explinations: there are very few ways to politely word "go f*ck off verisign", and if a big ISP were switching customers they should be identical. As for the dates, well, if someone forwarded them, the email header would have the date of forwarding. And if they were printed, then they would all have the print date. Either way, it would be weird if the dates were before (not after, as stated) VeriSign's request, since that would mean the competing registrar anticipated VeriSign's request.

I doubt that Mr. Lynn (the President of ICANN) won't catch on to VeriSign's obvious attempt at fooling him. And I doubt that VeriSign will like the consequences.

A .sucks TLD was proposed to ICANN (listed here in ICANN's list of proposed TLDs in October 2000), with the stipulation that the owner of domain.sucks could not be associated with the product/company/etc. domain. I'm assuming this was rejected by ICANN, since it's not on their list of new TLDs.

A .sucks TLD was proposed to ICANN (listed here in ICANN's list of proposed TLDs in October 2000), with the stipulation that the owner of domain.sucks could not be associated with the product/company/etc. domain. I'm assuming this was rejected by ICANN, since it's not on their list of new TLDs.

A working group of the country-code top level domains (ccTLDs), voted unanimously to pull out of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
They've been talking for months and aren't happy.
The ccTLD supply 1/3 of ICANNs funding.
ICANN has two other supporting organizations.
Each supporting organization gets three seats on ICANN's 19-member board.

Corrections:

It would be more correct to say "They've been talking for years", not months.
There are 18 seats on ICANN, not 19. In theory, 9 are elected by the three supporting agencies, and 9 elected by the internet "at large" but in reality, 6 are elected "support" seats (none of which are the ccTLD seats) and 4 elected "at large" seats. The rest are held by legacy appointees.

Some history on this:

ICANN was formed in 1998, essentially by the US, who appointed 9 people to the board at that time.
'Round about September 1999, 3 of the seats were supposed to have been filled by elections of the ccTLDs, but they didn't elect them. ICANN claims that they "decided to defer" the election. The ccTLD's claim they were not allowed to participate in this "decision." IOW, (if you believe them) they were defrauded of their three promised seats in 1999. It's hard to know who to believe in this, but I note that the seats are still aren't held by ccTLD's elected members. I think it's extremely unlikely that the amendments to the ICANN bylaws would have passed had those seats been filled by the ccTLDs.
Among other changes, the amendments have allowed 5 of the legacy appointees to remain without contest. Without the changes, they would have had to win an election to remain seated, and I for one, believe they wouldn't win.

And since ICANN falls under the UN, which was created by Treaty with the US and other nations, ICANN's wishes override the Constitution by our own Constitutional definition.

Bzzzt!

Sorry, but you are incorrect. The ICANN has nothing to do with the United Nations. From the About ICANN page:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.

ICANN derives its authority purely from a contract with the United States government. Essentially, ICANN was created to replace IANA (John Postel r.i.p.) and ARIN.

The scary thing about ICANN is that they so quickly became beholden to Network Solutions and the other vested big-money interests, instead of paying attention to what's good for the Internet as a whole.

Recent revelations about secret deals to allow Network Solutions to hang onto the .COM databases essentially indefinitely should have woken up the US Congress to the degree to which ICANN has already been corrupted, but so far, there is no sign that anyone in Congress has noticed, nor do they appear to care.

You can fault ICANN for many reasons but telling the .web and .biz squatters to take a long walk off a short pier is not one of them.

The wildcat squatters were told when they began that they would not be recognized.

The application by IOD, a current operator of .web, received an inaccurate assessment and was rejected. However, because of the dispute, ICANN also avoided giving .web to Afilias, and assigned them .info instead.

ICANN wasn't entirely dismissive of IOD, perhaps because IOD actually paid the exorbitant $50,000 fee and applied for it. IOD has also demonstrated a willingness to fight for .web in their Federal lawsuit against CORE, another .web operator, for unfair competition and trademark infringement.

Inconsistently, ICANN ignored a similar conflict with .biz, and gave it to NeuLevel, ignoring Pacific Root's operation of the legitimate .biz domain for the past six years.

The rub lies in the companies who provide the actual physical circuits -- the MCIs and Sprints of the world.

Get real, will you? I knew Jon Postel - I had a beer with him in Geneva the year he died - and I knew his long and close friendship with Vint Cerf, whom I also know. And Vint is now Senior Vice President for Technology at MCI WorldCom.

One of the things that tied Vint and Jon together (apart from being close friends for thirty years) was that both of them cared passionately about a free and open Internet. Vint still does. You only need to look at his page on Social, Economic and Regulatory Issues to see that. ISOC's slogan 'The Internet is for Everyone' is very much his slogan.

I think everyone agrees that ICANN is a mess - but it's a mess brought about by lawyers (mainly American lawyers), not by the Internet pioneers. Also, and this is what makes me most worried about articles like this one, is that the people who are doing most to damage the concept of a free, open Internet for everyone are not the pioneers - they're the get-rich-quick sleazoids who come in on the back of the pioneer's work and try to grab a chunk of the territory for themselves. We can all see that people who register patents for old and obvious ideas just by tagging 'Internet' onto the end of them are sleazoids. Can you not see that alternate TLD registrar wannabes are also sleazoids?

Yes, ICANN stinks. Yes, we need a more open, democratic authority controlling the top-level domains. But the Internet pioneers are not the enemy, and MCI is not the enemy. And in my opinion, the second thing that needs doing to ICANN (after making it democratic) is to move it out of American legal jurisdiction.

I guess some browsers have problems with that large domain name.

You can reach the site at http://www.disgrace.org/ also.

Also, the DNSO statements to ICANN are at:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign -revisions-28mar01.htm

The ICANN propoganda about the agreement is at:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revis ions.htm

I guess some browsers have problems with that large domain name.

You can reach the site at http://www.disgrace.org/ also.

Also, the DNSO statements to ICANN are at:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign -revisions-28mar01.htm

The ICANN propoganda about the agreement is at:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revis ions.htm

I'm not going to say too much about it here, but in .name's case, there will be clear restrictions favoring people that either register their own personal name, or a name they have a strong relation or ownership to (and which they must be able to document, if disputed). Look out for Appendix L on the page above - it shouldn't be too long before it is published for .name too.

The real meetings take place behind closed doors with their laywers (Joe Sims and Louis Touton) and VeriSign / NSI. They are currently trying to rush through an agreement that would give NSI full control of the registry for dot com indefinitely! That's right kids.... forget about competition NSI owns your ass and will gladly sell you out for a buck.

If you visit the ICANN Public Comment Boards you will see that a majority of the people are against this. Everyone things this is a REALLY BAD IDEA. But, the lawyers for ICANN continue to recommend this as the best course of action for the Internet as a whole. It really makes you wonder: 1) how much the ICANN board gets paid? and 2) how much VeriSign stock they own?

Here are 3 quotes from recent ICANN meetings:

1) The Names Council meeting in March 2001. Phillip Sheppard: "my apologies but we have run out of time... sorry no public comments"

2) The Board Meeting in November 2000. Louis Touton: "you're here to observe... not to participate!"

3) The Public Forum in March 2001. Vint Cerf: "The at large community exists - I mean, they're out there. The question is whether they have a role in ICANN."

This should make all of you very afraid! They don't want you, and they don't need you! And they are going to make all the decisions without you goddammit! Support New.Net and the alternative roots!

So except for ".info" and ".biz", which are completely general purpose, I expect that several of the new TLDs will have rules in place to prevent trademark owners from controlling everything (at least beyond whatever the courts may impose on them).

To see what the new TLDs will be doing, go to ICANNs website, and look for the contract appendices that are being posted - ICANN have started posting the contract appendices for the suggested contracts with the new TLDs. Not everything is there yet, as they are being added after ICANN feels the documents in question have reached an acceptable state.

ICANN's strength lies that it is not a commercialized entity, so its unlikely it can fall into some of the problems that plague other companies, monopolization, absurd rules, irrate Terms of Service, etc.

Sure many can be upset with ICANN, but as stated it is a non profit organization, so it makes due with whatever resources they have at their disposal. In comes company xyz with all the funding (think about these irrate issues such as Microsoft, Sprint's garbled Terms of Agreement, etc.), and you have to wonder if it really such a good idea.

As for the top two browsers, how many people DON'T use the top two browsers, why should they be forced to switch to another method of communications on the net to accomodate Idealab's idea?

Just my non important thoughts.

Just what the doctor ordered // sil

.org was suppose to be for non-profits the whole time. I like that, it's organized.

God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein

He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".

This tells me the following:

• It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a .org TLD under the proposed changes
• They haven't worked out all the details yet
• They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)

Sign me eternally optomistic...

He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".

This tells me the following:

• It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a .org TLD under the proposed changes
• They haven't worked out all the details yet
• They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)

Sign me eternally optomistic...

He pointed out that he has already made a post about this on ICANN's Public forum. When I mentioned that I didn't think it was clear enough, and asked him to clarify further to avoid a lot of confusion, he responded that they were "discussing this internally".

This tells me the following:

• It's not set in stone that you have to be a legally-recognized non-profit to hold a .org TLD under the proposed changes
• They haven't worked out all the details yet
• They at least appear concerned with the public opinion (read his post)

Sign me eternally optomistic...

I can't find any mention of it stating that, either. As it also refers to 'non-commercial organizations', I would assume that it's not talking about registered non-profit organizations, but would include not-for-profit and non-commercial organizations.

I personally own two .org domains, one of which is for a registered non-profit, and one of which (annoying.org) is purely personal.

If you do have issues with the proposal, use the message board ICANN set up for discussion of this topic. You're more likely to get authoritative answers to your questions, and if you have a valid point against the proposal, you might even get it stopped or amended.

The net result of this would be a .org registry returned, after some appropriate transition period, to its originally intended function as a registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.

In any case, it's not like joining, say, ICANN, to be done from the comfort of your keyboard.

So, I suspect we're not all going to run out and do it. But, we can support some folks we trust to do so. My first thoughts are to ask Mr. Gilmore and/or Bruce Perens, if IBM's left hand would let its right oppose these doings. Noise won't help here, but a combine in the form of that supporting Damian Conway's Perl work should be possible. Can one of our existing organizations (YAS or SPI [if there's still anyone home at at the latter]) pick up the banking effort?

For myself, I pledge to donate USD100 to such an organization for this purpose. Are there seven others willing to step up to the plate? If so, we've got a membership in hand.

And as this consolidation spreads throughout all industries, will we soon have a situation similar to the one we have with DNS tables where a single global registry of trademarks is enforced in all contexts? I'm not sure there's even a problem with that, but you have to admit, it'll take some getting used to.

And as this consolidation spreads throughout all industries, will we soon have a situation similar to the one we have with DNS tables where a single global registry of trademarks is enforced in all contexts? I'm not sure there's even a problem with that, but you have to admit, it'll take some getting used to.

Read up at ICANN, who decide these things. Yes, trademarks hold sway with domain names.

http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/

There is even a first court decision (in favor of ICANN).

Line 9: Argument of type SIGNATURE expected.

http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/

There is even a first court decision (in favor of ICANN).

Line 9: Argument of type SIGNATURE expected.

Even if you cut them the slack on the insider-related approvals, the applications leave so much about the actual operation of these new TLDs in the dark that it's hard to be enthusiastic about them.

That being said, the general principles behind the new TLDs are sound, if ignored by the slashdot hoi polloi. Primarily, they are selected to PREVENT further disputes over who gets what domain. Dot-pro is being limited to licensed professionals. Presumably, you will only be able to purchase dot-name for your own name. Not many people can pretend to be an airline, so dot-aero is pretty clear. The museum thing could be problematic. Dot-biz will be expensive, so it will be a "platinum card" option for businesses, making it good for e-commerce; presumably, less likely to be a fly-by-night company. And possibly, dot-biz was chosen to flex a little muscle against the folks who have already been registering them.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

It gets even worse than this..

A company called e2p has notified ICANN that they have a patent on all new TLD's..

The letter they sent to ICANN is available for viewing at http://www.icann.org/tlds/correspondence/e2p-email -11oct00.htm

It starts off by telling ICANN that they shouldn't be thinking about new TLD's, then goes on to criticize ICANN for neglecting "Internet Business Modellers" in the search for new TLD's.

The letter (and e2p's website) are pretty stark of details, can anybody shed any light on exactly what these bozo's are trying to pull?

5.b. No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the Corporation shall be empowered to make the election under 501 (h) of the Code.

What i'm not sure about is, how can ICANN be "independent", if it falls under US Law jusrisdiction, seing how it is a non-profit corporation organized within the framework of US law.

Regarding dispute itself, i'm somewhat surprized that ICANN acted this way (choosing submissions from some paying companies while refusing others), when their Bylaws, ARTICLE IV , Section 1: General Powers state:
c) The Corporation shall not apply its standards, policies, procedures or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as the promotion of effective competition.

I would say that granting some TLDs that benefit the companies which submitted them while rejecting others violates the above rule.

#include IANAL.h
#include disclaimers.h

-DVK

I believe that WIPO should change its name to something more descriptive and fitting. For those that missed this:

WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000

The World Intellectual Property Organisation, to improve commercial profitability, are to have a name and Internet site change. Formally WIPO, is now to be known as SWIPO. We can be found at our new site SWIPO.ORG.

We have the full backing of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.GOV) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.ORG).

We are the first and most excellent of the arbitration services for ICANNs big business friendly process - the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Do not think just because we are part of the United Nations (UN.ORG) that we are even-handed, therefore may rule against you. Being financed by big business - we know where our loyalties lie.

We are to shortly start an advertising campaign to inform of this name change, aimed at the corporate and celebrity world. We will guarantee to them with absolute certainty, that they we will get any domain name they covet - whoever already owns it. Unless owners have more money and power, of course. We can do this because of rationalisation, ridding ourselves of honest panellists in readiness for our Initial Public Offering in January 2001.

Do not use any of the other arbitration services - eResolution etc, even in the past we were the most successful in getting the name you want. We made the rules - we know all the tricks. We are the most powerful, growing daily, and can take whatever you want. Tell us the name; we will do the rest. Example: Paramount approached us a short while back, saying they would quite like CREW.com for their camera crews to use. We thought about it and came up with a winning excuse - Star Trek has the most famous crews of any ship on the planet (or off). We told them to hang on until after a smaller case for the name had gone through. It would be silly to turn down jCREW money.

We will push aside ALL competition, using the quote from Francis Gurry, Advertising and Publicity Executive, "Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best".

We deny all of the libellous slurs being put by our critics. WIPO.org.uk say we do not look after the interests of all trademark holders. It is a malicious lie; we follow a strict set procedure to make sure we do so:

1. We give domain to UDRP appellant, after their cheque clears.
2. We contact each trademark in turn, no matter how obscure or tenuous the link.
3. We offer them arbitration to take domain away from the new owner.

Case in point: After winning them JethroTull.com, told Tull about JT.com, which we just usurped for Japan Tobacco. Tull decided it was wanted; their money is as good as anyone's. We came up a winning argument; they are 'JT' to friends, all families and fans.

Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from our site at SWIPO.ORG.

"Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best"

Semblance of any the above to reality is purely a joke, as is the true state of affairs. All TM acknowledged. This has been written in the spirit of 'free speech' (you may have heard the expression). SWIPO is pointed to WIPO. If you want more of the truth (you be the judge), visit my site wipo.org.uk. You can see the answer to trademark problems there.

Wipo.org.uk and swipo.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above is considered and informed opinion.

Actually, according to WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), the registrar of the .tv domain is one of several country code domain registrars who have agreed to allow disputes in their domain to be resolved through WIPO's arbitration process using the rules of the ICANN dispute resolution system. So a challenge could be filed that way. Or Fandom, Inc. could go to a real court about it.

Fandom, Inc. is definitely a for-profit company despite any rhetoric it may have given about being a way for "poor oppressed fans" to band together against bullying corporations -- in fact, now they are showing themselves to be a bullying corporation themselves. They sell all sorts of stuff, and now own Creation Conventions (a for-profit con operator, not a non-profit fan-run one).

However, fandom.tv is technically engaging in namespace abuse, given that they are not located in Tuvalu!

From the article:
The proposed registration fee, $75, is much higher than the fees proposed by the other winning sites, which average about $5.

The average is hella higher than $5. .BIZ alone is charging $2000 (see Wired), so even if the other six were all free, the average would still be almost $300.

Kind of ridiculous when so many registrars are reg'ing the big three TLDs (.com/.net/.org) for $10 and less per year. Joker.com's down to around $9, $8 in bulk, on what I think is a $6 fixed cost they pay. So much for competition of other TLDs driving down prices. I doubt anybody who shells $50,000 per TLD (non-refundable) application fee with a 3% chance of approval (7 out of 210+ TLDs were approved) for a niche market is going to charge $8.

Gads...I just realized ICANN took in $11 million on the initial appliciations...and they're trying to revoke country domains for impoverished and unrepresented nations like Haiti and Brazzaville if they don't pony up?

Where do Wired get their figures from?? According to this article in The Age , and the actual proposal document at ICANN (see Section II.2.2 for the proposed revenue model and the pricing structure), the fee charged for the .biz TLD will be approximately $US5.00.

Bit of a difference to $US2000. What's going on?? Were they looking at the wrong bid?

According to this Wired article, the .pro TLD will require some sort of proof of "professional status". From the .pro ;ap plication: "The initial rollout of doctors, lawyers and accountants will have a first and unfettered opportunity to register within the .pro domain. That opportunity will not be extended to the public at large, but will be limited to professionals who have been qualified to practice within their respective professions." I imagine it'll be strictly US-centric in there.
The .museum will be for "accredited" museums, and .name would have reserved second-level names (eg., doe.name) and register eg., john.doe.name.
Of course, for what it's worth, I think it's all a bunch of crap. .museum?!? .aero?!? .coop?!? What the hell are those? Like all the freaking museums and aero-space companies, not to mention the co-ops of the world, are taking all the domain names! And .pro? Use a freaking phone book people! Like I'm going to go to johndoe.med.pro to find a Doctor for chrissakes! Only to find out he's in Cambodia!?!
.biz is a helpful addition, as long as the equivalent .com[mie]'s don't snatch it up (which they no doubt will). And .info will definitely be mined before it even gets released. See this quote:
"[.info will deal with IP issues by...] Instituting a Sunrise Period to allow qualifying trademark owners to pre-register their trademarks as domain names.
.name is slightly useful, but I don't think anyone has my name on the .com, .org, .net, .etc TLD's. How about yours?
The real problem is the lame-ass IP policies and education, not the number of TLD's. How many people (not us geeks, mind you) know of, much less use .org or .net? You're almost guaranteeing a webstore a slow painful death if they don't have a .com name. And I don't think that .biz will solve that issue either. (And where the hell is .tech.pro or something similar?!?)

If you read the application, the second level will be

• .med - Medicine
• .law - Legal
• .arg - Agriculture
• .ins - Insurance
• .fin - Finance
• .aer - Aerospace
• .rx - Pharmaceutical
• .trv - Travel
• .art - Arts & Entertainment
• .pub - Publications
• .auto - Automotive
• .npo - Nonprofit
• .acct - Accounting
• .trans - Transportation
• .util - Utilities

So it is really more like a Usenet-style name system. Ex: ford.auto.pro, citibank.fin.pro, northwest.aero.pro, etc.

• .pro: Professionals? Protractors? Pronunciation guides? Pronouns? What the hell is this for?
• .museum: Are museums a major portion of the net? I can't recall ever, in my life, having looked at a museum website. Now they get their own TLD? Coming next year: .photo-kiosk and .larrys-truck-repair!
• .aero: Let's see... "boeing.aero", "airbus.aero"... ummm, yeah that's about it. Way to expand the scope of the net.
• .coop: One URL: "chicken.coop". That's all I have to say on this one.
• .name: So who gets to own "bob.smith.name"? This one'll be a barrel of litigious fun.
• .info: Having chosen one (relatively) good tld, and eight that are way too specific, ICANN must have thrown this one in so that the "way too general" lobby was placated. I mean, think for a minute here. Everything on the net is "info". It's an information medium. Look at the application for this one; the same people also proposed ".web" and ".site". We're playing with the mental giants now, folks.

ICANN, once again, has demonstrated that it is just dumb. So I'll close with a plea for you to support OpenNIC. We already have the means and the motive to just ignore ICANN and improve the DNS heirarchy ourselves. Won't you please help?

It is a relief to see that some of the winning registrars (.coop for instance) will be enforcing registration requirements. The relaxing of regulations for .com, .net, etc. created the mess that we have now: registering all three to protect your name, registering a .org when you aren't really a not-for-profit, etc... Sorry folks, nobody will get to be the proud owner of "chicken.coop"...

Take a look at the applications submitted by the winning registrars.

This is a list of those still in the running.

Compare it to the proposals which were accepted (two weren't accompanied by the $50 000 required and those who proposed the .nyc didn't agree with ICANN about what should be confidential or not).

Compared to some, .health seems quite reasonable indeed. One can understand what it's for by its name and one can guess who's in it and why. I can't say that for more than half of those still under consideration.

The main point here is that NSI is supposedly not bound by the rules that bind the U.S. Government, despite holding a monopoly granted by the Commerce Department.

Network Solutions no longer has a monopoly on domain registrations, you can go to any of the ICANN members to register whatever domain is not taken. ICANN is not part of the US government either, as the bottem of their website clearly states.