Slashdot Mirror

The "two days ago" is correct, as a WHOIS query tells you.

...here's the new name, complete with domain registration: http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=thesunonsunday.co.uk

So far as I can tell, asus.co.uk is not Asus' UK website. If you go to asus.com and select the United Kingdom, you are sent to uk.asus.com.

The page you linked shows "asus.co.uk" in the address bar, yet if you go to "asus.co.uk" directly, you get redirected (as in "please wait while we redirect you") to uk.asus.com. I was unable to find this page on uk.asus.com. Furthermore, uk.asus.com is 66.238.93.162 while the page you linked (asus.co.uk) is hosted at 87.106.102.168.

A lookup on asus.co.uk shows that it is registered to Asustek, but it was updated very recently (May 22, 2009) and the nameservers are now at 1and1.co.uk (never heard of them).

Is it possible that someone has intercepted the domain in order to provide "proof" that the site in the summary is legitimate?

I highly doubt that ASUS hosts there website on 1and1.co.uk. Nor would they use 1and1 for their registrar. Especially when asus.com is registered with Network Solutions.

Not to mention that page seems to be the only page that the domain has on it and if try to snoop around it just redirects to uk.asus.com which is where asus.com sends you when you choose the UK for your country. If you check other countries on the asus.com landing page you will see that Asus puts there country sites on subdomains.

nic.uk asus.co.uk whois

Result of WHOIS query:

          Domain name:
                  asus.co.uk

          Registrant:
                  Asustek Computer Inc

          Trading as:
                  Asus

          Registrant type:
                  UK Individual

          Registrant's address:
                  The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their
                  address omitted from the WHOIS service.

          Registrar:
                  1 & 1 Internet AG [Tag = SCHLUND]
                  URL: http://registrar.1und1.info/

          Relevant dates:
                  Registered on: 23-May-1997
                  Renewal date: 23-May-2011
                  Last updated: 22-May-2009

          Registration status:
                  Renewal request being processed.

          Name servers:
                  ns59.1and1.co.uk
                  ns60.1and1.co.uk

          WHOIS lookup made at 16:22:49 28-May-2009

  --

GoDaddy.com who (according to Wikipedia) have 55.1 million domain names registered a year of which 51.5 million are canceled and refunded

If ICANN drops this grace period and domain tasters drop away (possible if unlikely) that leaves GoDaddy.com with 51.5 million domains at $10 per domain (or $515 million) in revenue flow that just dried up. That's a lot of money to just disappear from your business finances.

Halfway through the initial registration, the .eu domain became the third largest, behind .com and .uk.
.uk (with 4 million domain names)was only the fourth largest even before .eu started. Number one is .com, number two is .de (with about 10 million domain names). I think .eu hasn't passed .de yet.

According to Nominet http://www.nic.uk/ it's only the forth biggest namespace, not second.
As far as I know, Germany (over 9.5 million .de-domains) has the second largest namespace.

wildcard DNS's are very common in subdomains, CentralNIc are just re-selling subdomains (for 37 quid !) of course some people have been giving away subdomains for years

this company are nothing more than scam artists, charging 10 times what a real domain would cost but with none of the responsibility of a genuine NIC

Registrant's Address:

THE REGISTRANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS ELECTED TO
HAVE THEIR ADDRESS OMITTED FROM THE WHOIS DATABASE

.uk domain names allow you to "opt out" of the WHOIS information - however, it's only for "personal usage" domain names. If you use a domain name for commercial purposes, then you aren't allowed to "opt out" and have to have the information displayed. I believe this is due to the way the Data Protection Act here in the UK affects "private individuals" and "trading entities" (but feel free to have a look round http://www.nic.uk yourself)

Then there should be a new second level domain, such as .ind.?? for individuals to register their names. It should follow the first name surname pattern. Of course mary.brown.ind.uk is going to be a problem, and a resolution scheme must be found.

There's already a .me.uk second level domain. It's not in a firstname.lastname format and it is on a first come first served basis, but it's a start. I don't really see a way that a resolution scheme could be found for name collisions without adding extra unique identifiers to the domain. Which sort of negates the benefit of having these types of domains anyway.

If you are in the area, and have sufficient curiosity, you can use this map to guide you to the location mentioned above.

DISCLAIMER: it is possible that the UK NIC has the wrong information. It is possible that adversting.co.uk have nothing to do with a.exe (their web server may have been compromised).

You cannot register your own 'second-level' domain for .uk because Nominet (owners of .uk) like to keep it organised. Normal people aren't even supposed to use .co.uk, as there is a .me.uk for people, but when I purchased my domain only .org.uk and .co.uk were offered to me. Whilst being able to create your own SLD would be nice I think Nominet are taking the right approach, because it is very destinct whether the address holder is a company (.co.uk), an organisation (.org.uk), a school/college (.ac.uk) or a governmental agency (.gov.uk).

You cannot register your own 'second-level' domain for .uk because Nominet (owners of .uk) like to keep it organised. Normal people aren't even supposed to use .co.uk, as there is a .me.uk for people, but when I purchased my domain only .org.uk and .co.uk were offered to me. Whilst being able to create your own SLD would be nice I think Nominet are taking the right approach, because it is very destinct whether the address holder is a company (.co.uk), an organisation (.org.uk), a school/college (.ac.uk) or a governmental agency (.gov.uk).

I was under the impression that Nominet don't allow re-registration if a domain expires, only if it's explicitly released. My domain lapsed a year or so ago (registrar didn't renew it for me in time) but is still in my name, if inactive. They charge about 80 to reactivate a domain, such a money making exercise.

Nominet membership is a 400ukp one-off joining fee, and 100ukp annual subscription.

http://www.nic.uk/Members/HowToJoin/

But in some TLDs you can't. Like .uk (Nominet's rules,) for example (with the exception of x.co.uk, who got it before that rule came in, and so are allowed to keep it.)

I work in the .NET & Developer Group at Microsoft UK. For the record, there is no UK version of GotDotNet - this is just someone cybersquatting. Check the whois record at Nominet.uk. There's no need for a UK version of course - this is a worldwide community site.

Interestingly, I notice that someone's registered slashdot.org.uk... :-)

Tim

And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals)

It was put to a vote, and the yes vote won. Those on the losing side will always feel 'ridden over' but that will happen in any democracy. I personally am all for the publication. People change email addresses like they change shoes, and I find the contact information useful for when I want to contact the owner of the domain (usually to see if they still want it, but I also feel more secure knowing it's there if I ever need to call and complain about any abuse).

the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank

If they can charge around $3/year for a domain and end up with a shed load of money in the bank, why am I going to complain? It means they have the funds to upgrade their infrastructure should they need to, and being a non-profit I know it's not going to end up in some directors pocket.

who don't publish accounts

What, you mean these accounts?

the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name

I think you are probably an exception to the rule. I, and everyone else I know, have had excellent. I've no idea why you waited 2.5 years, after a couple of weeks I'd have been constantly badgering any company or organisation that had failed to do as promised, and after a month or two I'd have driven down there and made _sure_ it was done. It can't have been important if you never bothered chasing it up.

Nominet is not run for the common good, nor are they transparent

I respectfully disagree.

Phillip.

Take the UK for instance, Government has no involvement in administrating .uk, Nominet is run as a non-profit in the academic world, I believe part of the (modest) fees they collect go to fund the academic backbone, no business nor government gets in the way.

As for South Africa, their government is intent on controlling anything of value, after five years of pondering they've only just realised that Internet = $$$, hopefully in another few years they'll realise the bubble burst two years ago.

Names within .ltd and .plc have to match names of companies registered at Companies House in the UK. Apart from the laws against misrepresentation quoted on the page linked to above, companies are bound by law to register the home addresses of directors, and you can get this information from Companies House (not as easy as WHOIS, but its there).

I'd like large chunks of the net to stay anonymous and all that, but equally I'd like it if more of the net was like this - you can actually determine who you're dealing with 'in meatspace' because the registrar has the law on his side.

Technically, SSL certificates are supposed to help with this whole trust issue (which is what it boils down to - businesses have to earn trust to make sales) - but the CAs themselves are not trustworthy. How much for a certificate issued by the Consumer Association or Greenpeace?

Why can't they do something along the lines of the British model where you are required to submit valid information yet it isn't readily available through the whois, for every low life spammer to trawl through.

Yes to .co.uk and .org.uk. It's rather more difficult to get a .net.uk if you're not an ISP (though some people seem to have managed it).

(In case you haven't heard, these endings were .NAME and .ME.UK).

In order to discourage domain name squatting, the registries have taken different approaches:

GNR (.NAME) are having an extensive series of pre-registration steps before domain enters the general registration period.

Nominet (.UK) went the other way, ratified it on the 11th January and launched it on the 14th (1 day before .NAME hit the headlines - coincidence? I think not). This way it hadn't gained too much "hype" momentum, general consumers being fairly unaware of its existence. Additionally, the price was set 10 times higher than normal (£50 + tax), at least initially, to discourage mass purchase of addresses. You're only meant to register your own name; and if a company registers yourdomain.me.uk, this is considered an abusive use of the system, and you should be able to challenge the registration.

Personally I've bought my own .me.uk domain name from Firevision. It may cost £64 for 2 years (about $90), but I think its worth it in the long run.

Funny thing is, both bike.co.uk and bikes.co.uk are not yet taken.

I think your whois client needs a little fixing: they were both registered two months ago. (If it doesn't look up .uk domains automagically, as some do, add "-h whois.nic.uk" to the end of the command. Or you can just check them on the nic.uk website: bike.co.uk, bikes.co.uk.)

$ whois bikes.co.uk

Domain Name: BIKES.CO.UK

Registered For: UKIP Limited

Domain Registered By: UKIP

Record last updated on 16-Nov-2001 by .

Domain servers listed in order:

NS1.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.32
NS2.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.100
NS3.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.1
NS4.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.2

WHOIS database last updated at 16:00:00 17-Jan-2002

The NIC.UK Registration Host contains information ONLY for
registrations in the co.uk, org.uk, net.uk, ltd.uk, plc.uk,
sch.uk and me.uk second-level domains.

(bike.co.uk is pretty much identical.)

Funny thing is, both bike.co.uk and bikes.co.uk are not yet taken.

I think your whois client needs a little fixing: they were both registered two months ago. (If it doesn't look up .uk domains automagically, as some do, add "-h whois.nic.uk" to the end of the command. Or you can just check them on the nic.uk website: bike.co.uk, bikes.co.uk.)

$ whois bikes.co.uk

Domain Name: BIKES.CO.UK

Registered For: UKIP Limited

Domain Registered By: UKIP

Record last updated on 16-Nov-2001 by .

Domain servers listed in order:

NS1.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.32
NS2.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.100
NS3.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.1
NS4.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.2

WHOIS database last updated at 16:00:00 17-Jan-2002

The NIC.UK Registration Host contains information ONLY for
registrations in the co.uk, org.uk, net.uk, ltd.uk, plc.uk,
sch.uk and me.uk second-level domains.

(bike.co.uk is pretty much identical.)

Nominet has, IMO, very sharp practises. If you "buy" a domain in the UK (domain.co.uk) via an ISP, Nominet maintains a "tag" linking your domain to the "provding" ISP, until another ISP takes it over.

Oh, for heaven's sake!

Anyone can be a Nominet tag holder. I'm a tag holder myself. You don't have to be an ISP. You don't have to run your own DNS. If you want complete control over your domain, just register your own tag.

I directly accessed The Register using their IP address (213.40.196.64) and found that the server was still up, but that the home page carries a last update timestamp of 24 December at 15:29 GMT—over a day and a half ago.

So not only has the domain name been detagged, it appears that the site itself has gone into hibernation as well. Does anyone have any other information about what's going on over there?

EXTRA: I found this excellent post on Usenet, and append it here for your edification:



From: Anthony Edwards (anthony@catfish.nildram.co.uk)
Subject: Re: some one does not like THEREGISTER.CO.UK
Newsgroups: uk.net
Date: 2001-12-25 14:04:27 PST

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:09:06 +0000, in uk.net Rob Harvey <nospam@ukservers.net> wrote:

>
>What's also interesting is that the whois doesn't show a "Registered on" date
>which I believe means the name itself is pre-nominet and didn't have an expiry
>date.
>

The Register's first issue was Number 1, 25 July 1994 (Nominet began in 1996 I believe). In those days it was an email newsletter, the first issue can be viewed at:

http://194.159.40.109/reg1.txt

In fact, issues 1-37 can be viewed at the above site, simply by placing the relevant issue number in "reg*.txt".

However it appears that, at least up until 8 November 1996 (issue 37), the domain name theregister.co.uk was not in use. Indeed, the site was at http://www.hubcom.com/register/ , although it seems that John Lettice and Mike Magee also at that point owned the domain theregister.com (albeit they don't now).

One wonders what has happened to theregister.co.uk to cause the domain to become detagged. It is hard to believe that it is a simple financial matter, given the relatively small sums involved. I notice that the identity of the person who apparently requested the detagging (presumably via the Nominet Automaton) is an employee of uk.psi.com. Since all such detagging requests (from Nominet members to Nominet) have to be PGP signed, one imagines that request at least was genuine (but see below).

Up until around September 2001, The Register's hardware was co-located at one of Level 3's UK facilities. Following a variety of technical problems relating to Cisco load balancing equipment, the site was moved I believe, although I am unable to remember who the new hosting centre is. I have a sneaking suspicion that it *is* now PSI, in which case I imagine there will be much embarrassment all round.

On the other hand, there may be a little more to it. The Register have roundly slated the bulk email operation behind the recent Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines spam incidents, pointing out in no uncertain terms (and to Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines too, one imagines) that the email addresses used were definitely culled from Usenet.

However, consider this:

>Received: by jupiter (mbox topflite)
> (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Dec 16 13:34:37 2001)
>X-From_: root@peel.net Sun Dec 16 13:24:33 2001
>Return-Path: <root@peel.net>
>Received: from blaster1.peel.com ([216.52.138.23])
> by jupiter.nildram.co.uk (8.10.0-mysql/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fBGDOWC28607
> for <posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk>; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:24:32 GMT
>Delivered-To: <posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk>
>Received: by blaster1.peel.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
> id 6D65261DC; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:24:28 -0600 (CST)
>To: posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk
>From: "Virgin Wines" <virginwines1979@peel.net>
>Reply-To: notify@peel.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Subject: Great Christmas wine at a bargain price
>Message-Id: <20011216122428.6D65261DC@blaster1.peel.com>
>Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:24:28 -0600 (CST)

mail from: root@peel.net in the SMTP envelope, and a Reply-To address
of notify@peel.net. However:

Dig peel.net@NS1.PEEL.COM (216.52.138.3) ...
Authoritative Answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for peel.net type=255 class=1
peel.net MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 10 returns.peel.net
peel.net A (Address) 216.52.138.9
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns1.peel.com
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns2.chi.pnap.net
peel.net SOA (Zone of Authority)
Primary NS: ns1.peel.com
Responsible person: root@peel.com
serial:2001092202
refresh:10800s (3 hours)
retry:3600s (60 minutes)
expire:604800s (7 days)
minimum-ttl:86400s (24 hours)
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns1.peel.com
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns2.chi.pnap.net
returns.peel.net A (Address) 216.52.138.24
ns1.peel.com A (Address) 216.52.138.3
ns2.chi.pnap.net A (Address) 216.52.129.33

One MX record, and when one tries to connect to it:

----begin telnet capture----
$ telnet returns.peel.net 25
Trying 216.52.138.24...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
----end telnet capture----

Other Usenet posters have reported a similar inability to connect to returns.peel.net (and the name of the MX itself is indicative of a rather interesting sense of humour):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9njtk0%24aa2% 241%40FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw&output=gplain

So, the owners and operators of peel.net have cunningly managed, it would appear, to not only convince two of the UK's largest and more respected companies to use their service for what Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines apparently genuinely believed was a true, genuine, opt-in email marketing operation, they have also managed (by technical means) to ensure that their own bandwidth will not be wasted by such trivial communications as "message undeliverable" bounce messages either.

One wonders if an alleged spam operation with such a fascinating mindset might attempt a little social engineering hack, against a news site which exposed their antics so comprehensively. On 24 December, I doubt whether many of PSINet's key UK staff were operating. A telephone call to support, followed by a fax request to "detag our domain as we won't be using it any more" might produce an interesting result, might it not? Especially since one imagines PSINet UK have a handy internal Web front end tool for support staff to use to register/modify/detag domains, and that support staff on 24 December might have had other things on their mind, and when one considers how easy faxes are to fake (which makes it hard to understand why so many UK ISPs insist on them for such requests, rather than an email originating from the customer concerned's netblock, or a PGP signed email from the admin contact of the domain concerned).

--
Anthony Edwards
anthony@catfish.nildram.co.uk

I directly accessed The Register using their IP address (213.40.196.64) and found that the server was still up, but that the home page carries a last update timestamp of 24 December at 15:29 GMT—over a day and a half ago.

So not only has the domain name been detagged, it appears that the site itself has gone into hibernation as well. Does anyone have any other information about what's going on over there?

EXTRA: I found this excellent post on Usenet, and append it here for your edification:



From: Anthony Edwards (anthony@catfish.nildram.co.uk)
Subject: Re: some one does not like THEREGISTER.CO.UK
Newsgroups: uk.net
Date: 2001-12-25 14:04:27 PST

On Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:09:06 +0000, in uk.net Rob Harvey <nospam@ukservers.net> wrote:

>
>What's also interesting is that the whois doesn't show a "Registered on" date
>which I believe means the name itself is pre-nominet and didn't have an expiry
>date.
>

The Register's first issue was Number 1, 25 July 1994 (Nominet began in 1996 I believe). In those days it was an email newsletter, the first issue can be viewed at:

http://194.159.40.109/reg1.txt

In fact, issues 1-37 can be viewed at the above site, simply by placing the relevant issue number in "reg*.txt".

However it appears that, at least up until 8 November 1996 (issue 37), the domain name theregister.co.uk was not in use. Indeed, the site was at http://www.hubcom.com/register/ , although it seems that John Lettice and Mike Magee also at that point owned the domain theregister.com (albeit they don't now).

One wonders what has happened to theregister.co.uk to cause the domain to become detagged. It is hard to believe that it is a simple financial matter, given the relatively small sums involved. I notice that the identity of the person who apparently requested the detagging (presumably via the Nominet Automaton) is an employee of uk.psi.com. Since all such detagging requests (from Nominet members to Nominet) have to be PGP signed, one imagines that request at least was genuine (but see below).

Up until around September 2001, The Register's hardware was co-located at one of Level 3's UK facilities. Following a variety of technical problems relating to Cisco load balancing equipment, the site was moved I believe, although I am unable to remember who the new hosting centre is. I have a sneaking suspicion that it *is* now PSI, in which case I imagine there will be much embarrassment all round.

On the other hand, there may be a little more to it. The Register have roundly slated the bulk email operation behind the recent Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines spam incidents, pointing out in no uncertain terms (and to Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines too, one imagines) that the email addresses used were definitely culled from Usenet.

However, consider this:

>Received: by jupiter (mbox topflite)
> (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Dec 16 13:34:37 2001)
>X-From_: root@peel.net Sun Dec 16 13:24:33 2001
>Return-Path: <root@peel.net>
>Received: from blaster1.peel.com ([216.52.138.23])
> by jupiter.nildram.co.uk (8.10.0-mysql/8.10.0) with ESMTP id fBGDOWC28607
> for <posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk>; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:24:32 GMT
>Delivered-To: <posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk>
>Received: by blaster1.peel.com (Postfix, from userid 0)
> id 6D65261DC; Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:24:28 -0600 (CST)
>To: posthamster@catfish.nildram.co.uk
>From: "Virgin Wines" <virginwines1979@peel.net>
>Reply-To: notify@peel.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Subject: Great Christmas wine at a bargain price
>Message-Id: <20011216122428.6D65261DC@blaster1.peel.com>
>Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 06:24:28 -0600 (CST)

mail from: root@peel.net in the SMTP envelope, and a Reply-To address
of notify@peel.net. However:

Dig peel.net@NS1.PEEL.COM (216.52.138.3) ...
Authoritative Answer
Recursive queries supported by this server
Query for peel.net type=255 class=1
peel.net MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 10 returns.peel.net
peel.net A (Address) 216.52.138.9
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns1.peel.com
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns2.chi.pnap.net
peel.net SOA (Zone of Authority)
Primary NS: ns1.peel.com
Responsible person: root@peel.com
serial:2001092202
refresh:10800s (3 hours)
retry:3600s (60 minutes)
expire:604800s (7 days)
minimum-ttl:86400s (24 hours)
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns1.peel.com
peel.net NS (Nameserver) ns2.chi.pnap.net
returns.peel.net A (Address) 216.52.138.24
ns1.peel.com A (Address) 216.52.138.3
ns2.chi.pnap.net A (Address) 216.52.129.33

One MX record, and when one tries to connect to it:

----begin telnet capture----
$ telnet returns.peel.net 25
Trying 216.52.138.24...
telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: Connection refused
----end telnet capture----

Other Usenet posters have reported a similar inability to connect to returns.peel.net (and the name of the MX itself is indicative of a rather interesting sense of humour):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9njtk0%24aa2% 241%40FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw&output=gplain

So, the owners and operators of peel.net have cunningly managed, it would appear, to not only convince two of the UK's largest and more respected companies to use their service for what Sainsbury's and Virgin Wines apparently genuinely believed was a true, genuine, opt-in email marketing operation, they have also managed (by technical means) to ensure that their own bandwidth will not be wasted by such trivial communications as "message undeliverable" bounce messages either.

One wonders if an alleged spam operation with such a fascinating mindset might attempt a little social engineering hack, against a news site which exposed their antics so comprehensively. On 24 December, I doubt whether many of PSINet's key UK staff were operating. A telephone call to support, followed by a fax request to "detag our domain as we won't be using it any more" might produce an interesting result, might it not? Especially since one imagines PSINet UK have a handy internal Web front end tool for support staff to use to register/modify/detag domains, and that support staff on 24 December might have had other things on their mind, and when one considers how easy faxes are to fake (which makes it hard to understand why so many UK ISPs insist on them for such requests, rather than an email originating from the customer concerned's netblock, or a PGP signed email from the admin contact of the domain concerned).

--
Anthony Edwards
anthony@catfish.nildram.co.uk

Domain Name: THEREGISTER.CO.UK

Registered For: The Register

Domain Registered By: DETAGGED

Record last updated on 24-Dec-2001 by .

Domain servers listed in order:

WHOIS database last updated at 21:19:01 25-Dec-2001

Domain Name: THEREGISTER.CO.UK

Registered For: The Register

Domain Registered By: DETAGGED

Record last updated on 24-Dec-2001 by .

Domain servers listed in order:

WHOIS database last updated at 21:19:01 25-Dec-2001

I registered the domain jonnydigital.co.uk over two years ago with FreeNetName, a company who figured they could make money by giving out free domains. The only catch was that you had to dial into their ISP at least once every 90 days or you lose the domain - not a problem, since I was careful to dial in every few months - and they charge £95 (about US $135) to buy back the domain or transfer it to a different domain.

Unfortunately, I slipped up and lost the domain. I didn't mind because by that stage I had moved my site to jonnydigital.com, and the domain was going to expire in two weeks anyway so I was pretty confident that I could buy it back dirt-cheap with another company when it expired.

It would seem that they've renewed my domain and they're now squatting it. It's been registered by Freenetname again under a different name. I know it can't have been registered by another freenetname user because the company has stopped giving out free domains.

The reader will judge for themselves, decide if the beliefs enclosed in this response and on WIPO.org.uk are truth or hot air. You are welcome to try disproving these logical findings. The USPTO and DoC could not.

Please concentrate on the points raised - not the poor writing style. Do not be diverted from these points.

This addresses that which the authorities hide - the solution to trademark and domain name problems.

The authorities and legal profession do not to want it solved, for reasons of money and power - which is why I email interested parties.

The Internet is so important for many things - including people getting their voice heard. This Interim Report is for another small-minded, control-freakery, anti-libertarian policy, designed (amongst other reasons below) to stop free speech.

Trademarks have ® symbol placed after them for a reason. Why then, do they not use new TLD of .REG for this?

® symbol is warning, to advise the public that the mark is federally registered and their use provides legal benefits - http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml#faq6

What about trademarks 'raison d'être'? - Do you know what it is?

They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words.

To use Attorneys words, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace".

Most of the current problems are due to the authorities perverted and twisted sense of protectionism towards big business trademarks.

Most trademarks share its name or initials with many others. When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they are either devoid of intelligence or corrupt.

What other reason is there?

Brief comment on some of WIPO replies received:

Some give sycophantic congratulations on your success - do they mean success of:

a) Usurping domain from the original legal owner?
b) Giving one trademark holder dominance, over others with the same name?

Proprietary - Belonging to a proprietor. Proprietor - An owner; one who has legal right to anything. So, how can you legally stop anybody using these [Non proprietary] words?

Geographical - "Barcelona.com" etc. The DNS is like a giant library index system. Do they claim I.P. rights and royalties from books written about these places? They will be claiming I.P. rights on maps next.

IGOs - Protection will only censor public criticism and allow them to abuse power.

Personal Names - It is not justice that any one person has sole right to use of a name. Out of principle, the reason I did not take GarryAnderson.com. My name is as important to me, as yours is to you. I RECOGNISE that others may have the same name as me - and that others may wish to make critical comment. There is solution to the famous having own domain name.

Trade Names - More of the same. Abuse of power - when you know the answer.
Main arguments are best summarized in my response to Nominet UK. They are Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The Dispute Resolution Service went under review.

Sent 30 March 2001 to Nominet UK:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there) [skilful is proper English spelling ;-) mentioned so that critics could not pass me off as somebody of low intelligence (tried before)]. The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying [and read in context], "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone [879 live]. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in. [Obviously, some hide the lie - for self interest].

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1 Trademark Name
2 Classification
3 Country
4 Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD [trademark tax].

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:

1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

The reader will judge for themselves, decide if the beliefs enclosed in this response and on WIPO.org.uk are truth or hot air. You are welcome to try disproving these logical findings. The USPTO and DoC could not.

Please concentrate on the points raised - not the poor writing style. Do not be diverted from these points.

This addresses that which the authorities hide - the solution to trademark and domain name problems.

The authorities and legal profession do not to want it solved, for reasons of money and power - which is why I email interested parties.

The Internet is so important for many things - including people getting their voice heard. This Interim Report is for another small-minded, control-freakery, anti-libertarian policy, designed (amongst other reasons below) to stop free speech.

Trademarks have ® symbol placed after them for a reason. Why then, do they not use new TLD of .REG for this?

® symbol is warning, to advise the public that the mark is federally registered and their use provides legal benefits - http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml#faq6

What about trademarks 'raison d'être'? - Do you know what it is?

They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words.

To use Attorneys words, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace".

Most of the current problems are due to the authorities perverted and twisted sense of protectionism towards big business trademarks.

Most trademarks share its name or initials with many others. When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they are either devoid of intelligence or corrupt.

What other reason is there?

Brief comment on some of WIPO replies received:

Some give sycophantic congratulations on your success - do they mean success of:

a) Usurping domain from the original legal owner?
b) Giving one trademark holder dominance, over others with the same name?

Proprietary - Belonging to a proprietor. Proprietor - An owner; one who has legal right to anything. So, how can you legally stop anybody using these [Non proprietary] words?

Geographical - "Barcelona.com" etc. The DNS is like a giant library index system. Do they claim I.P. rights and royalties from books written about these places? They will be claiming I.P. rights on maps next.

IGOs - Protection will only censor public criticism and allow them to abuse power.

Personal Names - It is not justice that any one person has sole right to use of a name. Out of principle, the reason I did not take GarryAnderson.com. My name is as important to me, as yours is to you. I RECOGNISE that others may have the same name as me - and that others may wish to make critical comment. There is solution to the famous having own domain name.

Trade Names - More of the same. Abuse of power - when you know the answer.
Main arguments are best summarized in my response to Nominet UK. They are Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The Dispute Resolution Service went under review.

Sent 30 March 2001 to Nominet UK:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there) [skilful is proper English spelling ;-) mentioned so that critics could not pass me off as somebody of low intelligence (tried before)]. The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying [and read in context], "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone [879 live]. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in. [Obviously, some hide the lie - for self interest].

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1 Trademark Name
2 Classification
3 Country
4 Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD [trademark tax].

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:

1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

The reader will judge for themselves, decide if the beliefs enclosed in this response and on WIPO.org.uk are truth or hot air. You are welcome to try disproving these logical findings. The USPTO and DoC could not.

Please concentrate on the points raised - not the poor writing style. Do not be diverted from these points.

This addresses that which the authorities hide - the solution to trademark and domain name problems.

The authorities and legal profession do not to want it solved, for reasons of money and power - which is why I email interested parties.

The Internet is so important for many things - including people getting their voice heard. This Interim Report is for another small-minded, control-freakery, anti-libertarian policy, designed (amongst other reasons below) to stop free speech.

Trademarks have ® symbol placed after them for a reason. Why then, do they not use new TLD of .REG for this?

® symbol is warning, to advise the public that the mark is federally registered and their use provides legal benefits - http://www.inta.org/basics/tmfaq.shtml#faq6

What about trademarks 'raison d'être'? - Do you know what it is?

They are to identify source - NOT to claim world rights to a word or words.

To use Attorneys words, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace".

Most of the current problems are due to the authorities perverted and twisted sense of protectionism towards big business trademarks.

Most trademarks share its name or initials with many others. When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they are either devoid of intelligence or corrupt.

What other reason is there?

Brief comment on some of WIPO replies received:

Some give sycophantic congratulations on your success - do they mean success of:

a) Usurping domain from the original legal owner?
b) Giving one trademark holder dominance, over others with the same name?

Proprietary - Belonging to a proprietor. Proprietor - An owner; one who has legal right to anything. So, how can you legally stop anybody using these [Non proprietary] words?

Geographical - "Barcelona.com" etc. The DNS is like a giant library index system. Do they claim I.P. rights and royalties from books written about these places? They will be claiming I.P. rights on maps next.

IGOs - Protection will only censor public criticism and allow them to abuse power.

Personal Names - It is not justice that any one person has sole right to use of a name. Out of principle, the reason I did not take GarryAnderson.com. My name is as important to me, as yours is to you. I RECOGNISE that others may have the same name as me - and that others may wish to make critical comment. There is solution to the famous having own domain name.

Trade Names - More of the same. Abuse of power - when you know the answer.
Main arguments are best summarized in my response to Nominet UK. They are Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The Dispute Resolution Service went under review.

Sent 30 March 2001 to Nominet UK:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there) [skilful is proper English spelling ;-) mentioned so that critics could not pass me off as somebody of low intelligence (tried before)]. The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying [and read in context], "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone [879 live]. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in. [Obviously, some hide the lie - for self interest].

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1 Trademark Name
2 Classification
3 Country
4 Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD [trademark tax].

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.
There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:

1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

The .uk domain is administrated by Nominet, a not-for-profit organisation, whose membership is open to "any person or organisation with an interest in the Internet". Effectively, it's a kind of co-op and the most active (and, therefore, the most influential) members of this particular co-op are it's biggest customers - the ISPs who register *.uk domains.

Nominet is a monopoly, in that it has exclusive control over the .uk TLD, but few complain about this, because it is largely run by and for the benefit of it's customers.

Furthermore, the oversight inherent in an organisation with open membership and the competition between those ISPs in the marketplace ensure that Nominet's actions benefit all UK Internet users.

This is how all TLDs should be administrated - for the common good, instead of for the profit of the company who won the contract.

And, incidentally, this is how ICANN should be run, too.

D.

They have always known solution to trademark problems.

Nominet UK is the Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The existing Dispute Resolution Service is under review. I sent this open letter:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization ( WIPO.org.uk )

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying, "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.

There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

Try searching for ICANN+UDRP+truth+justice+honour+honesty on google (no link as not there).

Nominet UK is the Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The existing Dispute Resolution Service is under review.

They are being urged to use ICANN's UDRP - or some of its principles.

Consultation Responses - These being a Litigation Group - think I should add, all this is just my opinion after careful analysis.

Needless to say - despite this being a "public consultation" - my response was not allowed. I was censored. I include it below, just for the record:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying, "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.

There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

WIPO.org.uk - no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization -WIPO.ORG, part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.

Try searching for ICANN+UDRP+truth+justice+honour+honesty on google (no link as not there).

Nominet UK is the Registry for .uk Internet Domain Names. The existing Dispute Resolution Service is under review.

They are being urged to use ICANN's UDRP - or some of its principles.

Consultation Responses - These being a Litigation Group - think I should add, all this is just my opinion after careful analysis.

Needless to say - despite this being a "public consultation" - my response was not allowed. I was censored. I include it below, just for the record:

Garry Anderson
World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk)

Response to Review of Dispute Resolution Service for Nominet UK

The WIPO represents just plain common sense and logical intelligence on topic of Internet management. Ability further demonstrated on other subjects at skilful.com (though you may not like what I say there). The following is considered and informed opinion - after looking at all the facts. See if you agree with me.

WIPO is defending the rights of domain owners worldwide. So obviously - not the same WIPO that is part of UN just looking after big business (coincidentally paid by them). Though they are certainly biased, I would not accuse them of being corrupt (with only circumstantial evidence).

This solution has been put to the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Department of Commerce - during discussions neither could deny my assertions. It was common sense that the authorities already must have known the simple logical answer.

First, I wish to make comment on the response from IP Litigation Group - Field Fisher Waterhouse, supporting ICANN's UDRP. There is so much I wish to say, but will cut it very short.

To quote them, "As to the inconsistency of decisions being handed down under the UDRP, it is still early days and, as more decisions are made and precedents are adopted, the decision-making will become more uniform."

Saying, "...we believe that trade mark protection is of paramount importance", they unashamedly admit their decisions are biased. This is nothing more than a confession they are becoming more uniformly prejudiced.

A fact for you: domain names are not trademarks - ask Paul Mockapetris, creator of Domain Name System.

However, as authorities know, domain names could be made compatible with trademarks.

ICANN's UDRP has shown this Dispute Resolution process is totally unworkable and unjust.

Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet - this is a barefaced LIE. Only those unable to progress ideas through to conclusion would believe them.

They only give certain trademarks an illegal dominant position and create a 'cash cow' for their friends in the legal profession. This is demonstrably true and was the obvious intention. Those in pocket of big business would say otherwise.

Most businesses fail to realise, their domain could be victim of reverse hijacking by bigger business, at any time in the future. They will never be safe, even after investing ALL into their business - the most important part of their business, their identity, could be stolen from them.

The only solution is to have restricted TLDs. For example, Nissan cars tried to take nissan.com from Mr Nissan - it makes sense to reserve .car TLD for carmakers - they can then use nissan.car. It has to be on a 'first come - first served' basis.

There is one main cause for all these problems. The authorities are deliberately managing the system so that domain names are not compatible to trademarks. They do so for reasons based on money and power, without any sense of Justice. To explain:

Nearly ALL trademarks share a common word(s) with many others - even in same country. For example, in the dispute case of etoy and eToys (e prefix for Internet) - 1,685 trademarks share common word "toy" in USA alone. There are tens of thousands of them in 200 other countries. Logical, therefore, that ALL cannot use slight variations on this common word (as domain name) - else it would "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion".

Those with a brain can see, nearly all domain names "infringe" upon others and cause "consumer confusion" - it is just bull* excuse.

Making it worse still - they let only one of these businesses use this common word - so ALL the others cannot. This is against "unfair competition" laws. BUT, what makes it really bad - the authorities know the answer to avoid this and are allowing businesses to break this law.

It gets even worse (is this possible?). Though the naming system is not just for trademarks, authorities are taking these common words from the legal owners. These people had the intelligence to buy these common words first. The authorities and big business are stealing the "Intellectual Property" of these individuals.

As shown, most trademarks cannot have their name - so nearly ALL visitors are going to arrive at the wrong location and ALL get "confused" anyway. So "consumer confusion" and "infringement" are just excuse, obvious lies, used to take away the domain from legal owner. These are problems inherent in the system - entirely the fault of authorities.

All these cases, in the courts and before WIPO, are based on lies and propaganda. I am amazed so many intelligent people have been taken in.

Something to note. They all do not want it solved; you will only see objections from them. Even the 'good guys' (defending the little guy) are making a lot of money from these disputes. Their arrogant refusal to publicly recognize mandatory requirements is contemptible.

Mandatory Requirements:

1. Trademark Name
2. Classification
3. Country
4. Identifier - suggest Top Level Domain of .REG

The format for customer to identify source (the reason for trademarks): name.class.country.reg

This acts as certificate of authentication and directory - if you can use the telephone, then you can use dot REG. Small businesses need not go broke buying hundreds of domains, trying to protect every slight variation of trademark in every TLD.

If business wants to use Name.com for advertising and marketing purposes on the Internet - this is legal usage. To use it as currently used (to dominate over other trademarks), is illegal usage. It requires class, country and identifier - i.e. Apple Computers could use apple.tech.us.reg for trademark identity - using apple.com for marketing.

It is logical, that they all are issued with a domain name with each trademark - in format name.class.country.reg - the same as trademark rights issued.

There need be no restrictions put on a company whatsoever - they can use any number of .com/.biz etc. domains - for advertising and marketing purposes.

There are laws in place should Mr Nissan try to pass himself off as Nissan Cars on his nissan.com. Big business is using Dispute Resolution to dominate this word space. Anyway, the consumer knows it is not the car people - if they are not redirected to nissan.car.uk.reg.

There are laws in place for libel should anyone make such unlawful remarks on any of these sites. They object to any criticism and are using Dispute Resolution to abridge the freedom of speech.

It is nothing complicated. Guardians of the Internet with all your so-called experts, if you still do not understand, contact garry@wipo.org.uk - I will draw you a picture. However, you knew all this already - or are you admitting to gross incompetence?

The main reasons they want Dispute Resolution to go on:
1 Big business gets more power abusing their trademark.
2 Guardians of the Internet get more importance.
3 Lawyers and trademark protection companies get rich.
4 Domain registration companies get rich from trademarks protecting mark.
5 Small businesses go broke with big business taking identity - less competition for them.
6 They muffle criticism of them - abridging the freedom of speech.
7 Kids (and grown-ups) are stopped from making fan sites.

In conclusion, to reiterate - domain names are not trademarks. Millions of TLD are possible. I call for Nominet UK to put pressure on ICANN, first for the introduction of .REG to stop most of these problems. From there, new restricted TLDs to stop other disputes, examples .CAR and .ACTOR - it is just plain common sense.

WIPO.org.uk - no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization -WIPO.ORG, part of UN, paid for (owned?) by big business.

...except for the power we allow them to have. The whole domain name service is a de facto standard, not a de jure one. The main reason it's still in place is because it's big, it's established and people don't really know how to go about overthrowing it. But that _will_ change, sooner or later.

For example, over the past six months or so, I've been involved in a discussion between representatives of a number of major international corporations, mostly in the financial services sector, who are considering building a kind of a next-generation Internet, co-operatively owned and operated (similar to the UK's NIC), based upon IPv6, with all of the advantages that entails. The Project is referred to as the Grid.

From what I've heard in the meetings I've attended, they plan to build an intial backbone around the world, centred and controlled from London, linking to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo and a couple of cities in the United States. It would initially only be used by the companies involved in initially setting it up, but, later, anyone would be allowed to join and become equal shareholders in the non-profit company which will own and operate the backbone (and the DNS system), as long as they pay their share of the cost of maintaining the backbone. Any profits would be ploughed back into improving the network.

The technical details aren't really an issue at the moment. One of the committee invited me along after hearing me speak at a conference and I've been advising them as to what's possible and what's not.

It's all quite interesting. Whether it'll actually pan out is another matter, but their reasons for wanting to do this (dissatisfaction with the current ownership and administration of the Internet and with it's security) aren't exactly unreasonable.

Funnily enough, the main things they end up discussing in their meetings are related to the administration of Grid - i.e. how the administrating company would be set up and owned, whether all the stakeholders should have an equal vote or not, how to ensure that no one company or organisation can gain too much power, etc. They're not all that worried about the technical side, because it's all pretty much possible - or rather will be when IPv6-capable networking equipment and operating systems become available.

It's a lot of fun sitting there and watching them all get into seriously deep legal discussions and so on... It's even more fun imagining the upheaval that will occur when it launches.

The Dodger
Hacker & International Network Architect ;)

As for replacing BIND, what happens if you give named a root-servers file with different root servers in it?

For the past six months or so, I've been involved in a discussion between representatives of a number of major international corporations, mostly in the financial services sector, who are considering building a kind of a next-generation Internet, called the Grid, co-operatively owned and operated (similar to the UK's NIC), based upon IPv6, with all of the advantages that entails.

From what I've heard in the meetings I've attended, they plan to build an intial backbone around the world, centred and controlled from London, linking to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo and a couple of cities in the United States. It would initially only be used by the companies involved in initially setting it up, but, later, anyone would be allowed to join and become equal shareholders in the non-profit company which will own and operate the backbone, as long as they pay their share of the cost of maintaining the backbone.

The technical details aren't really an issue at the moment. One of the committee invited me along after hearing me speak at a conference and I've been advising them as to what's possible and what's not. What you've outlined above is the sort of thought process I had to go through to figure out how the Grid's DNS system could interface with the exiting Internet's.

It's all quite interesting. Whether it'll actually pan out is another matter, but their reasons for wanting to do this (dissatisfaction with the current ownership and administration of the Internet and with it's security) aren't exactly unreasonable.

Funnily enough, the main things they end up discussing in their meetings are related to the administration of Grid - i.e. how the administrating company would be set up and owned, whether all the stakeholders should have an equal vote or not, how to ensure that no one company or organisation can gain too much power, etc. They're not all that worried about the technical side, because it's all pretty much possible - or will be when IPv6-capable networking equipment and operating systems become available.

It's a lot of fun sitting there and watching them all get into seriously deep legal discussions and so on...

The Dodger

Hacker & International Network Architect ;)

As for replacing BIND, what happens if you give named a root-servers file with different root servers in it?

For the past six months or so, I've been involved in a discussion between representatives of a number of major international corporations, mostly in the financial services sector, who are considering building a kind of a next-generation Internet, called the Grid, co-operatively owned and operated (similar to the UK's NIC), based upon IPv6, with all of the advantages that entails.

From what I've heard in the meetings I've attended, they plan to build an intial backbone around the world, centred and controlled from London, linking to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Moscow, Hong Kong, Tokyo and a couple of cities in the United States. It would initially only be used by the companies involved in initially setting it up, but, later, anyone would be allowed to join and become equal shareholders in the non-profit company which will own and operate the backbone, as long as they pay their share of the cost of maintaining the backbone.

The technical details aren't really an issue at the moment. One of the committee invited me along after hearing me speak at a conference and I've been advising them as to what's possible and what's not. What you've outlined above is the sort of thought process I had to go through to figure out how the Grid's DNS system could interface with the exiting Internet's.

It's all quite interesting. Whether it'll actually pan out is another matter, but their reasons for wanting to do this (dissatisfaction with the current ownership and administration of the Internet and with it's security) aren't exactly unreasonable.

Funnily enough, the main things they end up discussing in their meetings are related to the administration of Grid - i.e. how the administrating company would be set up and owned, whether all the stakeholders should have an equal vote or not, how to ensure that no one company or organisation can gain too much power, etc. They're not all that worried about the technical side, because it's all pretty much possible - or will be when IPv6-capable networking equipment and operating systems become available.

It's a lot of fun sitting there and watching them all get into seriously deep legal discussions and so on...

The Dodger
Hacker & International Network Architect ;)