Slashdot Mirror
Karl Auerbach Speaks Out on ICANN
richard koman writes "Here's an interview I did with Karl Auerbach about ICANN in the aftermath of their eliminating public board members. 'October's distributed, denial-of-service attack against the domain name system--the most serious yet, in which seven of the thirteen DNS roots were cut off from the Internet--put a spotlight on ICANN, the nongovernmental corporation responsible for Internet addressing and DNS. The security of DNS is on ICANN's watch. Why is it so susceptible to attack, when the Internet as a whole is touted as being able to withstand nuclear Armageddon? It's religious dogma, says Karl Auerbach, a public representative to ICANN's board. There's no reason DNS shouldn't be decentralized, except that ICANN wants to maintain central control over this critical function. Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names.'" A Wired article suggests the five elected board members won't be stepping down on December 15 after all.
a corporate ruled world which want's globalization but only if they profit with it?
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
I should probably start pointing my OpenNIC domain at my server again.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Dog bites man. New food found to increase/decrease cholesterol. More violence in the middle east. And of course, ICANN found to be irresponsible organization seeking to consolidate its power even further, and put itself beyond the reach of the general public.
You expected ethical behavior from businessmen who founded a corporation to administer a database? Business people just do not behave altruistically. There is ALWAYS an angle.
There is, believe it or not, a diference between a nuclear attack and a DDoS attack.
If there is a direct nuclear strike on the location of one of the DNS roots, the others are unscathed. You need a whole lot of nuke strikes to fully disable the DNS servers.
However, although 7 of the DNS roots were down during the DDoS, the fact remains that SIX WERE UNAFFECTED.
I.e. the system behaved the way it is supposed to behave, and proved that it is relissialnt after all.
I offer no comment oin the rest of the article.
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Yea....
DNS is dying.
Naked, petrified DNS.
Hot DNS down your pants
DNS the caveman.
Yes, but what if ICANN puts all of its DNS roots in one building, to protect them from roaming mobs of protestors and proletariat raids?
The internet would still work without ICANN... Just not domain names...
:-) Do you?
If you knew the IP addresses so you could reach the servers you desired, and didn't have to use domain names, you can still reach the servers (in fact this is a useful way to get around some types of blocking.)
ICANN just converts the domain name to an IP address... And unfortunately, it's kinda difficult to have a non-central way to handle that (albeit, I have seen some interesting papers on this topic... discussion for another time.)
the Internet is built that if the base architecture is not one server dependent. (in other words, if one server isn't all that is connect two sections of the internet.) Then it will work, since no taking out of one server will disrupt the connections between the rest.
The only thing that fails if ICANN fails is the domain names. Which means that if you don't know the IP addresses to those sites that are important, then you can't do much.
I know Slashdot's IP... that's all that matters to me.
~ kjrose
It's good to see someone finally speaking out against ICANN. It seems like sometimes only the geek elite care about these issues, so every little bit of added publicity helps. Still, it is sort of questionable as to whether he's qualified to pass any sort of judgement in this situation. He is pretty convincing on Law and Order, but I'm not sure he really does have a legal background. And that's one of my favorite shows; a non-fan would probably be even less likely to value his opinion.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Internet denied Domain names not found again ICANN out to lunch
Would you rather have a governmental agency running this?
Have you ever been to the California DOT?
You could spend 3 hours on hold because you have to call in changes, then wait 6 months for changes to perpetuate only to find out the minimum wage moron that answered the phone typed in your changes wrong.
You've gotta feel for little ol ICANN.
And those junkets aren't jet setting fun, they are work! In hotels!
What a sorry politician that guy is- he can't even come up w/half decent b.s.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
If you read the article (and a previous article on /.), you would know:
- he has spoken against ICAAN before. It's not like he's "finally" speaking out.
- his car was stopped by the police when he was younger, which made him decide to get a law degree so he would know his rights. He does not practice law, but he could if he wanted to.
That the ICANN board members might not step down on December 15th? What a shock that people who have that much power and aren't elected would be loathe to give it up. (And, please, no GWB comparisons. If everyone learns how to vote and actually exercises that responsibility in the U.S., we won't have to worry about him as President post-2004.)
Lord Acton had it dead on. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Let me ask you - did YOU notice problems with the net on the day of this attack? more than half of the root nameservers were down and the average internet user didn't even notice. Things kept working and the other root nameservers took the load. The DNS system explicitly is NOT susceptible to attack and I think that this attempt at DOS-ing it supports this.
Free Online Dark Fantasy RPG - http://www.blackmud.com
why we can't just decentralize DNS ourselves? If we could set up say 5 root servers (surely SOMEONE would be interested?) or so, we should be able to handle the load, right? Let's not forget that the internet is a collection of seperate networks. If those networks stoped participating in the current DNS system, ICANN would quickly become irrelivant, right?
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
To combat DNS piracy, I propose that Internet users purchase decryption keys for the answers to DNS queries.
A DNS-DRM-compatible resolv.conf might include new directives to specify credit card or bank account information to facilitate automatic debit. Thank you.
but what is hindering us to build up our own public DNS service database ??? You remember, ot worked with freedb.org
This whole nuclear attack thing is crap. From the perspective of network connectivity, what's the difference between a nuclear detonation and a few well-placed backhoe accidents? (Yes, yes, I know, they're totally incomparable because of the catastrophic effects of a nuclear detonation, but I'm talking about the effects on the network, not on people and buildings.) How many times in the last ten years have we seen major routing issues to a metropolitan city or even a geographic region arise after a backhoe cut something it shouldn't have? Admittedly, recovery from a nuclear detonation would take much longer than recovery from a backhoe accident... And if, God forbid, most of the metropolitan cities in the U.S, Europe, and Asia are destroyed in nuclear Armageddon, then the Internet's going to suffer big-time.
If the media hadn't reported on the root server DDoS, then 99.999(9?)% of the Internet community wouldn't have even known that anything had happened. DNS caching and the redundant servers helped things continue working despite the DDoS. On the other hand, if someone launched a DDoS against something like eBay or ETrade -- something the average person can see, feel, touch, and understand much more clearly than DNS -- then, one, the effects would've been much more apparent much more quickly and, two, the reactions from the average user of those services would've been much angrier.
Is DNS security an issue? Sure. But so is Internet security in general, but when major websites are inaccessible because of a worm or DDoS, who do we yell at aside from the site operator/owner? Not sure. As deplorable as ICANN's behavior is, they're also being made a scapegoat for bigger network issues, methinks, because there's no other actual organization to yell at.
is it really so bad? Couldn't we just use IP numbers directly? Sure, it's not the best, but lookups on WHOIS could make "mission critical" things like accessing my yahoo account still work!
Everyone hurry up, and write down all the IP addresses of your favorite websites before it's too late!!! The DNS apocalypse is upon us!!
Slashdot.org: 66.35.250.150
freeporn.com: 209.150.195.101
Wheew... well that about covers my use of the Internet.
--Zuchini
You left out "All your DNS servers are belong to us"
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
It's a democratic, non-national set of dns servers that sit above the regular root server and offering additional top-level domain spaces such as:
By altering where you point your DNS, you get everything you always had, plus the above, plus more redundancy.
Oh? Who exactly *is* "altruistic"? Is it the doctor who fixes peoples' bodies in order to make himself happy, or the thief who steals to make himself happy? The artist who creates paintings to make herself happy? The donor who drops money in the bucket because it makes him happy to do so?
Quote: "Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names."
.reg !
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identies them in physical world - isn't it obvious something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
Facts:
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. But they would rather be aiding and abetting corporations to violate Trademark and Competition Law.
Virtually every word is trademarked - most are many times over (in different types of business and/or country) so every domain can be 'stolen' in UDRP from the legal owner, on the premise that it is confusingly similar.
Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it.
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. These are unlawfully being prevented from getting their name in Sunrise period.
In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark - e.g. a new protected TLD of
name.class.country.reg would identify all trademarks - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg.
This could be used as certificate of authentication. There is no restriction on business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG.
For more facts please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
If the registrar does not follow the rules and delete registration, then if ICANN does not decertify Versign for taking bogus information and refusing to delete them, then go after both ICANN and Verisign for and not enforce under the theory of 3rd party beneficiary of contract.
Fight Spammers!
Few memes bug me more than this one.
The internet is not designed to survive a nuclear attack.
The Arpanet was not designed to survive a nuclear attack.
Read Where the wizards stay up late: the origins of the internet for confirmation.
The Arpanet was built with multiple redundant paths to withstand normal, mundane disasters, like fires, local power outages, construction backhoes digging up communications cables, not nuclear attack.
Yet you hear well-educated people, who should know better, repeat this nonsense all the time. I guess it makes too good a story.
Yes, I can see Richard didn't actually say it could survive a nuclear attack, merely that it was touted as being able to survive. But this meme is so annoying it bugs me when people even hint it is true.
Easy. They just need to have sons, name them Dubya, and have the sons elected into office.
Two small nuclear devices could annhiliate the internet as we know it. One air-burst over each of MAE-East and MAE-west would cause the remaining core junctions to collapse from the traffic overload. But in reality, the Internet was not "designed to withstand nuclear attack", that is as Auerbach says "religious dogma" not based in fact. It was actually set up to withstand clueless site administrators, who we considered a more pressing danger than nukes at the time.
The recent attack on the DNS servers was a demo. A "wake-up call" if you will. It demonstrated a vulnerability, that could be applied to *ALL* the DNS roots (or the routers they sit behind) causing the failure of the global commercial DNS. Note that many academic, non-profit, and regionalized commerical nets would still work fine, though, because not all site admins are clueless.
If you can't see how the current system is inherently vulnerable due to the inappropriate centralization of a distributable protocol suite, you need to study the RFCs some more.
http://opennic.unrated.net
Who's next?
Targeted EMP would be more effective, although 4 or 5 well placed nukes would take out most of the electronics on the planet. Unfortunately they would probably hurt someone too.
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
I doubt they're going to sit and hope it never happens again. I am sure more provisions are being thought of to handle another attack like that.
If there's a nuclear attack, who's going to give a shit about the internet anymore. I know that if there ever was a nuke attack in the united states, I'd get the hell out as soon as possible (assuming I wasn't dead already). I don't want to be a in country vulernable to madmen! New zealand here I come!
2 questions...
Who pays ICANN's paychecks? Is it the domain registrars?
Can a company or individual sue a company for anti-trust? Or does it have to be a government? And could ICANN be sued for this?
The Arpanet was built with multiple redundant paths to withstand normal, mundane disasters, like fires, local power outages, construction backhoes digging up communications cables, not nuclear attack.
Yet you hear well-educated people, who should know better, repeat this nonsense all the time. I guess it makes too good a story.
Actually, there does seem to be some basis for the story. Michael Swaine's column in the Jan. issue of DDJ is mostly a review of Linked: The New Science of Networks. He explains that the DOD did commission RAND to design a communications network that would survive a nuclear attack. However, the government never used the analysis or design.
Natalie Portman. Hot grits.
Just a thought.
Only a pussy like you would run away instead of defending your country.
my post (the first response), are all quite old.
quite possibly before your time.
The problem with these types of articles is that they don't explain anything. Do you know why only 700 some people voted for ICANN board members in the US? Because very few people even know what DNS means: it means Domain Name System. Now, you can't just say that. You have to say what it does. The DNS binds a certain web-address (such as www.slashdot.org), which you type in your web-browser, to its location in computer-space, represented by its IP (Internet Protocol) number, which might be something like 135.352.653.354. DNS is necessary because no one can remember IP numbers, and you need to have easy-to-remember things to type in.
Now, there does not need to be one and only one DNS. Different people can use different resolution systems. The main one is that of ICANN, but free public-interest alternatives such as OpenNIC exist. Also, note that there is no reason why you have to abide by ICANN's assignment of any website to its IP number. You can -- in your hosts file, a file on your computer -- make it so that web addresses assign to the IP you want them do. Don't think the courts were right in stealing Nissan.com from its rightful owner, a computer business owner? Then assign Nissan.com to the actual IP address of his website. Don't think that Stampede.com should belong to a corporation which makes useless products you have no need for? Fine, reassign it in your hosts file to the IP address of Stampede.org, the Linux distro.
The point is, you the user have power to assign any web address to any IP address. you also have the power to choose whether to use ICANN or OpenNIC...I use my HOSTS file first, then OpenNIC, then ICANN.
In fact, anyone can start a DNS system. All it takes is a server. The only thing is getting major recognition. But that doesn't matter: people who want a free, public-interest DNS will be able to find the appropriate one's. I think that OpenNIC is wrong when they say they won't do anything to conflict with ICANN's domain name resolution. They should actively counter ICANN when ICANN makes decisions taking domain names away from private individuals and giving them to corporations. The court's have no business interfering with OpenNIC's decisions on who to assign domain-names to via its server: this is a private organization, and it can assign domain-names to whatever IP address it wants to. Corporations don't like that, too fucking bad. Users can choose which domain name resolution systems to go to...if corporations don't like OpenNIC assigning intel.com to someone who is selling information services, then they can try to convince people to use ICANN instead of OpenNIC. But in the end, its up to each individual user to decide: Intel (for example) has no right to have intel.com assigned to the IP address for its website on every single DNS system. I can start my own DNS system, convince all you fellow slashdotters to use it, and assign intel.com to my own website! How about that!
Now, there is an obvious problem with having conflicting DNS systems between ICANN and OpenNIC...that is, that ICANN might assign intel.com to 135.354.535.343, while OpenNIC will assign it to 463.534.643.134. Thus, hyperlinking becomes a problem...if I type in , then it might mean a different thing for someone who uses ICANN and for someone who uses OpenNIC or dh003iNIC
So, what can we
- Stop using ICANN as our primary service.
- Use OpenNIC as our primary service.
- Modify our host files to fuck over greedy corporations, and create a server system for these specific modifications so anyone can access them. If thee aren't to many, just post them and offer them for download. I figure there might be about a thousand or so web addresses which ICANN has assigned to various entities that we disagree (and should disagree) with.
- Create automated services to resolve web-address conflictions between different services by auto-converting them to IP numbers and then re-converting back to web-addresses, depending on which service (ICANN or OpenNIC) is used.
So, in short, there is something we can do other than just try to reform ICANN. I personally think ICANN's hopeless anyways. Selling web-address locations for all kinds of money is absurd...its only one entry in a file pinning a web-address to an IP number: costs next to nothing to do. There could easily be as many top-level domain's as there are ideas...you the individual user could even create personal "domains" in your hosts file.social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
How could you forget 198.247.175.96?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There is definitely a difference between a nuclear attack and a DDOS all out blanket effect. I saw this case as kind of like the war on drugs really; against DNS as a hacker you might put a marginal dent in supply every once in a while but demand will still flourish. In this case the backbone as has already been understated was "quite resilient" and packet flow was only approximately halved after an attack by how many unknown remote hijacked systems? I tip my hat to the people that built that system; it survived the one of the gnarliest waves of DDOS attacks that I personally have heard of and its a fine example of precisely the way a mission-critical redundantly linked server network is supposed to flourish in the face of adversity and threats inbound from multiple opponents. To take the analogy a step further it was like an aikido expert who battled against many unknown foes and it triumphed through its strength of design and the foresight of the experts that alertly run it as opposed to having to rely only on its techniques and form. They won their battle without even needing to know their opponent and to me thats a good chunk of what network security ought to be in an ideal world. There was no politics involved from a casual observers point of view, the attack simply failed due to superior defensive design.
> My problem with this sort of analysis is it assumes that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy.
...etc.
.biz, .whatever than preserve some random small-time third party's right to the name.
.reg would be foolish: with the sophistication of the average user, it'd be about as worthwhile, popular, and well-known as .aero.
.reg as the trademark symbol on the Internet.
You are most wrong - and you misrepresent me. I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders. In their communications, nobody in USPTO or US DoC has ever accused me of this.
You would know you are wrong if you looked at WIPO.org.uk - Quote: "Trademarks are for the good of the people, as well as business. Attorneys would say, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace"."
Then look at Comments on WIPO Interim Report
Quote: "Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet..."
> I think a little more review of "confusingly similar" and the apple analogy would help UDRP decisions seem much more reasonable.
UDRP is unlawful and fatally flawed. It violates Trademark and Competition Law - and pisses on First Amendment.
> Co-existence of similar marks in the real world is dependent on a low likelihood of confusion of source,
The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Obviously, I shouldn't expect this opinion to be very popular here, but I'd rather get Microsoft on my first try at microsoft.com,
You would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used to complain about their monopoly or business practices?
Domain names are not trademarks, ask creator Paul Mockapetris. He designed DNS for the function of naming resources - not as unlawful fatally flawed trademark system. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Professor Milton Mueller (Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies) recent study: "Conclusion: Domain Names are not Trademarks". To be trademarks he states, "If this is true then the exclusivities associated with business and product names should be applied systematically to them."
The exclusivity's are obvious:
1. That it is a registered trademark - given that ALL words are trademarks and so can be confused with other domains.
2. The country of the trademark - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in DIFFERENT country.
3. The type of business (classification) - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in SAME country.
So, as domain names are not trademarks - you would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used by authorized agents e.g. microsoftshop.com - or an individual offering training of microsoft office - e.g microsofttrainer.com?
> And in the end, it you take it from the perspective of the average guy (that is, the person trademark law is most trying to protect) doesn't it make sense that Nissan.com would be the car maker's site? After all, that's what they'll type into their browser when looking for it.
Nissan motors are unlawfully overreaching their trademark - Mr Nissan is not even in the same trademark classification - ask any trademark lawyer.
> Moreover, that's another reason
You completely miss the point (deliberately?) - it will be issued to all registered trademark holders.
Given every word is trademarked - most many times - why should big business be allowed prevent small business and the public from using every dictionary word?
People will associate
If they are redirected to it - they will accept it as certificate of authentication.
Anybody that would abridge peoples use of words is obviously anti-First Amendment and likely in corporate pocket.
Because you haven't read it, obviously. You're just going off the front page summary.
2) You're done! Click here to test!
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
To clarify, .glue is not an OpenNIC TLD. We have
put forward the use of .glue as a reserved suffix
for domains pertaining to DNS roots. No
one is authoritative for .glue, because
otherwise any root choosing to use .glue would
be subject to said authority for that domain, which would undermine its purpose.
All <name>.glue domain NS records are placed directly
into the root zone, same as the TLDs we home and
peer. There is no .glue zone at all.
> You do an excellent job of quoting completely specious authorities.
.reg would only help if consumers tried nissan.geeletmelookupclassnumberswhileitype.us.reg or whatever you're proposing before they tried nissan.com, which they totally won't.
.DOC .DOMINO .DOMINO .DOMINO
You do excellent job of diverting attention away from root of problem.
> Referring me to your own website, for one, doesn't exactly get the ball rolling.
If you are going to accuse me of promoting "that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy" - then you should back that up. The website makes intent clear.
> The part about your analysis that fails to persuade is that it tries to discuss this in a vacuum.
The analysis is accurate (demonstrably so) and takes into account all aspects of the problem.
The fact is that authorities are helping corporations violate the Law - or do you deny that?
> ('Prof. Somedude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that the public treats them that way.
Professor Milton Mueller is recognized expert in this field - you seem to not know this. You appear ignorant in other aspects of this.
I shall answer second point in example below.
> 'Domain name creator Otherdude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that they clearly function as an indicator of source in the vast majority of instances.)
DNS creator Paul Mockapetris would be the best person to ask about the project - would he not?
I shall answer second point in example below.
> Without wasting words trying to influence someone with an apparent big grudge,
You misrepresent me again. I have no grudge - I want to stop corporations abuse the Law - at the expense of small business and the public.
> I'll be brief: you miss the point that
You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
Duh - how about nissan.car.us.reg?
Or - directory services nissan..us.reg - brings up all nissan trademarks.
Or - like yellow pages they could have several entries - nissan.motor.us.reg - simps is it not?
> Artificially moving trademark issues to a separate TLD might placate you (what lost domain name ticked you off this much?)
How does this move anything? - It gives certificate of authentication.
I have not lost any domain.
> but it won't do the average guy any good.
As an average guy - ask how the current situation answers the example below.
> The rhetorical question in answer to yours is: Given people conduct business on the internet - most lots of business - why should some small random guy the average consumer has never heard of be able to interfere with business between a consumer and the proprietor of a famous brand?
This does not interfere - it helps avoid confussion.
You did not answer my questions inc. The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Besides, you're also ignoring how UDRP bails out seriously screwed up 'landrush' systems.
Landrush was mostly screwed up because of unlawful Sunrise period - giving priority to trademarks in an open market.
> Likelihood of confusion is appropriately determined on a factual basis, so there's no way you can tell me in advance what is confusing and what isn't.
Okay - if you are so clever.
Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused. So, you wanted to order a pizza over the Internet from Domino. But you do not find it at domino.com. Which one of these US trademarked businesses do you think own it?
I know some of these are the same company - exact numbers do not matter - the principle does.
1 78054972 DOMINO EASYEDIT
2 78043999 GET THE DOOR. IT'S DOMINO'S.
3 78043563 DOMINO'S PIZZA ALWAYS DELIVERS
4 78014495 DOMINO'S TOUCHDOWN TAKE-OFF
5 78028015 DOMINO'S PIZZA PAC
6 78009108 DOMINO'S, GOOD PIZZA.
7 76240732 BUTTERFLY DOMINOES
8 76078073 DOMINO EFFECT
9 76193486 DOMINO
10 76007760 DOMINO
11 75499984 DOMINO
12 75778831 RUNS WITH LOTUS.DOMINO
13 75198223 DOMINO.BROADCAST
14 75791660 2433096 PEOPLE FIRST! DOMINO'S PIZZA
15 75598015 2434012 DOMINO'S DOMINO'S PIZZA
16 75198226 DOMINO.MERCHANT
17 75198224 DOMINO.HEADLINES
18 75198222 DOMINO.ACTION
19 75832621 DOMIN-8
20 75613168 2397006 DOMINO
21 75489347 DOMINO EXTENDED SEARCH
22 75813822 DOMINO'S PIZZA RANCH
23 75613169 DOMINO.DOC IMAGING CLIENT
24 75613170 DOMINO.DOC STORAGE MANAGER
25 75909782 DOMINO
26 75747277 DOMINO
27 75705667 2341094 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
28 75668552 JAVINO
29 75566938 2340269 DOMINO'S PIZZA PRINT PROGRAM
30 75514691 2292434 DOMINO'S PIZZA IMAGE 2000
31 75504692 2334538 ORDERDOMINOS.COM
32 75503344 2328038 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
33 75500376 2359221 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE DOMINO'S PIZZA
34 75385423 2238421 DOMINO'S UNIVERSITY
35 75363014 2343965 DOMINOSERVER
36 75359535 2286280 DOMINOPLUS
37 75327355 2226774 PINK DOMINO
38 75322278 DOMINO.COMMERCE
39 75310768 DOMINO INTRANET STARTER PACK
40 75306520 2199099 DOMINO'S ONLINE!
41 75248234 2293117 DOMINO PLUS
42 75241600 2182970 DOUBLE WUBBLE DOMINOES
43 75214086
44 75214085
45 75214084
46 75179392 2276986 DOMINO
47 75161656 2200695 AMERICAN DOMINOES
48 75141065 2069876 DOMINO
49 75124486 DOMINO
50 75084591 2082479 DOMINO PARK
51 75078094 2109837 DOMINOWIZARD
52 75046809 2047395 DOMINO
53 75005459 2307662 DOMINO
54 74300278 1921539 DOMINO COMPUTERS
55 74732376 2005425 COLOR DOT DOMINOES
56 74636244 2007581 DOMINO
57 74623484 2180906 DOMINOATM
58 74618236 1941096 GOTTA BE DOMINO'S
59 74548867 1927565 PINK DOMINO
60 74534533 1959676 DOMINO
61 74499406 1880479 DOMINO
62 74491432 2131544 DOMINO
63 74472238 2053055 DOMINOLAN
64 74472237 2051098 DOMINO
65 74472094 2051097 DOMINOWAN
66 74470359 1877911 KISS-DOMINO
67 74436986 1856079 DONNY DOMINO
68 74361281 1975582 DOMINO CGT DUPLEX
69 74277464 1744721 DOMINO'S
70 74210777 1768801 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY KNOWS LIKE DOMINO'S HOW YOU LIKE PIZZA AT HOME
71 74133773 1682070 BUCK$ BAG DOMINO'S PIZZA
72 74075314 1647572 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
73 74048366 1665372 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
74 74021946 1620123 DOMINO RALLY
75 73814024 1604865 1-888-DOMINOS
76 73810670 1585978 DOMINO REDI-FOND
77 73793978 1582848 DOMINO'S FARMS
78 73776718 1568673 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER
79 73749832 1555133 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER.
80 73749120 1539093 DOMINO
81 73729899 1520302 DOMINO'S PIZZA
82 73729898 1519402 DOMINO'S PIZZA
83 73722665 1525625 COUNT ON DOMINO'S
84 73710763 1504835 DOMINOTES
85 73664947 1475625 DOMINO'S PIZZA
86 73664887 1473901 DOMINO'S PIZZA
87 73602462 1427679 DOMINO'S PIZZA
88 73487625 1382556 DOMINO'S PIZZA
89 73463366 1388040 DOMINO
90 73460960 1306462 COLLEGE OF PIZZAROLOGY DOMINOS PIZZA
91 73431713 1325825 DOMINO
92 73429900 1310321 DOMINO'S PIZZA DELIVERS
93 73427337 1280877 DOMINO
94 73349691 1249196 DOMINO'S PIZZA
95 73265845 1166751 DOMINO'S PIZZA
96 73226590 1185666 DOMINO
97 73215481 1191810 DOMINO
98 73165932 1146369 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP DOMINO TOURNAMENT
99 72251933 0832403 DOMINO
100 72141219 0746508 DOMINO
101 71587865 0565192 DOMINO
102 71178908 0171995 DOMINO
103 71178907 0171994 DOMINO
104 71038424 0073099 DOMINO
105 70037177 0037177 DOMINO
Or is it owned in one of 200 other countries?
Or is owned by small business without trademark?
Come on - if you are so clever.
You are using government tactics of evasion and misdirection.
...
;-)
Why do you wish to abridge the publics choice of words?
> This would be so much more fun if anyone else were reading.
While one person seeks the Truth, what does fun matter - the effort is still worth while.
> A trademark is
Yep - I know all this.
A trademark is NOT a word that prevents all other businesses from using dictionary words (providing not passing off) - is it?
It is unlawful for trademarks to do this - is it not?
Also - some big businesses try to prevent people using seemingly made up words - even though these words have been used before them.
Also - eBay tried to stop 'Appraise Bay' from being used on the Internet. There are many hundreds of trademarks in the U.S. with the word 'bay' - likely thousands all over the world. There are untold numbers more of small businesses legally using the word 'bay' without a registered trademark.
Is it not a true fact, that Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it?
> This problem presents nothing more than a simple need to balance competing interests.
I disagree - but tell me the reason - tell me why simple need to balance competing interests has not been solved?
As for 'ivory-tower' analysis - it takes into account everybodies right to use domains for lawful purpose.
> do you believe I should have the right to register and use cocacola.com?
I believe you have the right to use cocacola.newTLD to make legitimate complaint about the company.
If you believe people do not have right to make complaint - if you are anti-First Amendment - then I surely agree with you - "we're going nowhere."
Incidentally - those in corporate pocket always use the cocacola example - look at many of UDRP decisions - here are a few made by corrupt UN WIPO on their own - does not include other arbitration services and cases of domains that have been bullied by lawyers (is an old list):
video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...etc
Very different from the example of cocacola that corrupt lawyers use - are they not?
> find it impossible to suggest that my personal interest in registering and using a particular domain name is more compelling than the other billion internet users finding what they think they're going to find when they type.
You would allow ONE trademark to prevent all the rest from using their mark - and prevent small businesses from using their name in commerce.
Not very lawful - are you?
It is not mutually exclusive - is it?
Also - why cannot apple.computer.us.reg, apple.computer.uk.reg, apple.record.uk.reg etc. etc. ALL use their trademark?
> Frankly, unless a person has some sort of anti-corporate chip on their shoulder,
It is nothing to do with being anti-corporate - it is to do with being fair and equitable.
G> You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
> Because nobody's looking for Mr. Nissan, we're all trying to buy a car. We might as well ask why shouldn't Mr Nissan use davidnissan.notreg.us.
The vast majority of domains are not owned by trademarks are they?
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - is not it obvious, that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
G> But you do not find it at domino.com
> Silly European, all Americans know its DOMINO'S and not DOMINO,..all I can tell you is I haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be. I'll grant that it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely there is some UK (or whereever) DOMINO mark that remotely approches the strength and fame of DOMINO'S. How else would they occur to you as an example?
European? - You insult me
So - if you "haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be", then everybody that wants domino is going to be confused also - most are going to get wrong business - true or false?
> There are numerous ways to avoid confusion in the brick and mortar world beyond mere information, but let's generally set that aside.
We are talking about a word on its own, say for example 'domino' - how can you avoid confusion in cyberspace?
The odds are that most people typing domino.com get the wrong business - true or false?
So again (longer version) - The only way to avoid confusion, on the Internet, is to supply more information - yes or no?
> day 1 after rollout, 998 million internet users are still trying nissan.com for the auto maker.
When they do not find it there - they try nissan.car.us.reg - and find it straight away.
As most words are shared by many trademarks - 998 million internet users are still trying (InsertWord).com and not finding it there.
Quote from Trademark Act: "the registered owner of any one of those trade marks does not have the right to prevent the registered owner of any other of those trade marks from using that trade mark except to the extent that the first-mentioned owner is authorised to do so under the registration of his or her trade mark."
Why should one trademark be allowed to prevent everybody else from using the word - when it is unlawful for them to do so?
I could not understand why you would want consumer confusion for ownership of domain names.
It appears that you work for, quote "one of the largest law firms in the Southwest." (US)
I would imagine they make a lot of money from these problems.
You did not disclose this.
I now understand your deliberately spin on these arguments - and see straight through you.