April 28, 2004
Non-Commercial Website Domain Names Using Trademarks
There are now several different courts of appeals that have upheld the right of individuals to post a non-commercial website using the domain name www.company.com, and there are as yet NO appellate decisions that forbid such websites outside the context of the serial cybersquatter who tries to erect a so-called gripe site as a CYA measure after being sued. In fact, it seems to me that we are getting close to the point where companies that sue over such websites have to consider seriously... [CircleID]
Posted by mikki at 11:08 PM
April 23, 2004
How to Get a TLD Approved by ICANN
And here we have been wondering what amazing magic process ICANN uses to approve TLDs. The super secret has finally been revealed. Check it out at this handy link .
Posted by mikki at 12:12 PM
April 18, 2004
The Scoop on .LY
Kieran McCarthy has a new article in The Register that gets to the bottom of the recent .LY outage: Dr Hosni Tayeb and the case of the disappearing Internet. [Lextext]
April 16, 2004
The Launch of .pro Domain for Professionals
From 5 April to 14 May 2004 trade mark owners can apply in the .pro domain for defensive registrations corresponding to their marks. The .pro domain is only available to doctors, lawyers and CPAs during this period, known as a "sunrise period". ...During the period when the creation of ten new generic domains is being discussed, it seems timely to wonder whether the multiplicity of generic extensions is not killing the specificity inherent of each of them. In addition, having... [CircleID]
April 13, 2004
Pure Parody Site Prevails in UDRP
Warning: some may find the music on the parody site annoying.[The Trademark Blog]
Posted by mikki at 08:59 PM
April 06, 2004
ICANN Responds to VeriSign Suit
From DNRC Board Member Bret Fausett's blog
This will be interesting to watch. And if the motion to dismiss fails and ICANN has to file an answer, I wonder whether it will find any ground for a counterclaim seeking termination of the COM registry agreement. That would make things really interesting.[Lextext]
April 05, 2004
ID cards: a guide for technically challenged Prime Ministers
The specter of ID cards has again raised its ugly head, but this time it is in Britain. Hopefully they will see the proverbial light in time.
Special report Save us all billions - don't do it, Tone... [The Register]
April 03, 2004
ICANN Abandons Technical Matters Altogether
An important question from DNRC Board Member Karl Auerbach. Why, indeed, do we even need an ICANN in the face of this news?
I see that the RIRs and ICANN have, after years of talk, managed to come up
with a letter of intent to enter into a "Memorandum of Understanding".
That "Memorandum of Understanding" pretty much removes ICANN from
any real role in the matter of IP address allocation.
As usual, ICANN resorts to the ambiguous words "Memorandum of Understanding" to avoid clearly stating whether or not the relationship being established is legally enforceable as a contract.
There is an interesting reference in paragraph 16 of the proposed MoU that refers to an "agreement to be executed between the RIRs and ICANN". Notice that in that instance the documents use word "agreement" rather than "Memorandum of Understanding". The word "agreement" is often synonymous with "enforceable contract", so my guess is that's where we will find the terms that transfer money from the RIRs to ICANN, a matter not mentioned in the proposed MoU but one that we know from experience is never far from ICANN's mind.
As a practical matter this MoU removes the final opportunity for ICANN to claim that it has any role whatsoever in the technical oversight of the internet.
In June of 2002 I raised the question - What Would Happen To The Internet If ICANN Were To Vanish? This proposed Memorandum of Understanding once again makes it clear that ICANN's absence would have no impact on the technical stability of the internet. Which should lead one to wonder what, if anything, is the benefit of ICANN to the community of internet users?[CaveBear Blog]
April 02, 2004
Crawford Addresses Copyright Office (Ernest Miller)
The "Copyfight" blog is an excellent resource for anyone who is tired of the Content Cartel's abuses against the law, and against consumers around the world. Highly recommended.
Yesterday, Prof. Susan Crawford gave a talk to the Copyright Office (part of a program called The Copyright Office Comes To New York [PDF]), in which she critically discussed the broadcast flag, the DMCA, and state encroachments on copyright (Copyright Office talk). Read the whole thing. Being that yesterday was April Fools, let's hope the Copyright Office doesn't take her talk as a joke, as the Office has so often seemed to take other criticisms of copyright maximalism.[Copyfight]
April 01, 2004
House panel approves copyright bill
Just what we all need. NOT. Once again the Content Cartel scores a win and US Consumers score a big lose.
A House of Representatives panel approves a sweeping new copyright bill that would boost penalties for peer-to-peer piracy and increase federal police powers against Internet copyright infringement. [CNET News.com]
Time to Move to Canada
Quite an interesting article from Wendy Seltzer
An Ottawa Federal Court has denied the Canandian Recording Industry's (CRIA's) demand for the names of alleged music sharers, on grounds that remind us why diversity in copyright laws is a good thing: Canada's got this one right.
The court ruled that plaintiffs had not shown that they had the right targets or that their targets infringed copyright (they failed to "establish a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer").
- Downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement
- Placing personal copies into a shared directory is not "distributing" or "authorizing the reproduction" of sound recordings
- There was no evidence of knowledge, necessary to secondary infringement liability
Congrats to the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, whose intervention helped the court get there.
The court "cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service." The court also held that the CRIA had delayed its requests too long, presented too little evidence of methods for tracking users, and would have to reimburse ISPs if it were ever permitted discovery. [Wendy: The Blog]
Reaction to IPC
Ever since the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN was formed based upon their "inclusion" of dissenting groups (make that one group, the DNRC) and then kicking us out because we couldn't pay their $5,000.00 fee to play the game, it was clear that they had decided to run the show. They so much want to run every aspect of the domain name system through the filter of what is good for their corporate masters, that users rights are not considered. And that is exactly the way both the IPC and ICANN like it. But this might be changing. Check out the following from DNRC Board Member Bret Fausett
Eric Brunner-Williams, writing on the registrar list: "Since there isn't a chance in hell that the IPC will ever agree to any limit on their right to run the show, there isn't any point in talking to them." Entire thread here. FWIW, I've never understood the past alliances between the registrars and the IPC; their interests aren't aligned. The IPC has an interest in foisting obligations (and costs) on registrars and controlling the way they conduct their business. As I read the tone of the registrar list the last six months, this has become more and more unpalatable. [Lextext]