Domain Name Rights Coalition

Domain Name Lessons from Napster:

I first outline a brief history of free file-sharing technology, then draw some general and domain name lessons, then outline the what, how, and why that make your activism effective and necessary.

Music Download Background

Napster was the first online music file-sharing service and was created by Shawn Fanning in 1999 while he was attending Northeastern University in Boston. The service, operating under the domain name napster.com, allowed people to easily share MP3 format music files with each other, thus leading to the music industry's accusations of massive copyright violations. Grokster, a similar technology, was created in 2001. However, the original Napster service and Grokster were shut down in 2002 and 2005, respectively, by court orders resulting from music industry lawsuits.

Sensing the vulnerability of Napster's centralized technology, Niklas Zennström, Janus Friis, and Priit Kasesalu (the team that later created Skype and Joost) launched Kazaa in March 2001. With Kazaa, there is no central server: Tom in Berkeley directly accesses Jose's computer in Mexico for a Bob Marley song. Within twelve months, more than 250 million copies of Kazaa had been downloaded. Kazaa's revenue, however, came from centralized selling of ad space on its downloaded software. Thus, although there were no centralized computers to host the songs, the ad revenue was centralized.

With legal pressure from the music industry, Kazaa, based in the Netherlands, was sold to a company based on the South Pacific island of Vanatu—beyond the reach of the U.S. and European legal systems. After Kazaa was chased out of Vanatu, an unknown hacker erased the parts that served ads and distributed the new software version online as Kazaa Lite (also known as K+), thus developing an even more decentralized technology. Now millions began downloading K+. A similar free music-sharing software is eMule, a descendant of eDonkey that is more decentralized and open source than anything anyone in the music industry had seen.

Reflecting the general hunger for privacy and secrecy, Share is the name for a closed-source P2P application being developed in Japan by an anonymous author.

General Lessons

1. Because Napster and Grokster were centralized, legal action against them could succeed. A decentralized system is far less vulnerable.
2. Fighting Napster only benefited lawyers, as free download continues.
3. Becoming decentralized and going underground diminish return to software developers but increase the benefits to users/violators.

Domain Name Industry

The domain name industry is decentralized and atomic in that anyone from anywhere in the world can register a domain name, keep the ownershp name and address private, and host it from a country where the U.S. and European legal systems don't apply. Thus, legal action will only drive domain owners further underground.

By shifting underground, domain name owners would:

1. Become hard to track. A cooperative IP regime, on the other hand, reduces incentives to go underground and thereby makes content and brand violations easier to control. Domain owners are more likely to cooperate with a trusted third-party monetization entity than with brand owners.
2. Increase domain tasting of brand names to cover any additional cost from moving further underground. On the other hand, under a cooperative IP regime a cutoff date can be assigned to eligible domain names, reducing any incentive to register brand domain names under the umbrella of a cooperative regime.

What can be done?

The domain name industry should get the message out to Internet users and brand owners that:

1. Indiscriminate legal action exasperates the problems associated with the use of brands in domain names.
2. A solution cannot come only from the side of the domain name industry; a cooperative solution is imperative.

The domain name industry is serious about fighting illegal use of brands in domain names.

How should our industry react?

1. Initiate media campaigns.
2. Openly discuss solutions in domain name conferences, as they are also attended by the media and brand owners.
3. Lobby Congress through the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) and domainer activism.
4. Discuss the problem and possible solutions in domain name forums and other relevant forums.
5. Take action against current monetizers that continue sponsoring obvious domain name violations.

Why Take Action?

Without action:

1. Industry can face tough unwarranted legal restrictions such as the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (APCPA).
2. Domain name values would drop.
3. Internet user experience is diminished for which our industry is blamed.

Nevertheless, action will send a clear signal to registrants under future TLDs that the industry will not tolerate such bad behavior.

Concluding Remarks

Indiscriminate legal action by brand owners against those who register domain names that incorporate their brands can backfire by driving further underground domain name registration and Web site-hosting.

Our industry can and should take proactive measures to limit or prevent such consequences. A cooperative IP regime between brand and domain owners is a viable solution.

We Value Your Opinion: Please participate in this quick survey

More under: Domain Names, Law

Posted by mikki at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June Court Decision Detrimental to Domaining Practices:

In a June court ruling, domainer Navigation Catalyst and registrar Basic Fusion lost a cybersquatting lawsuit to Verizon.

Verizon California, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc. [PDF], 2008 WL 2651163 (C.D. Cal. June 30, 2008). The Justia page. A page with some of the early filings.

This is an extremely interesting and potentially precedent-setting case regarding domaining and domain name tasting. The court condemns both practices, leading to a preliminary injunction against the domainer and its registrar based on the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). As far as I can recall, this is the first time that a domainer has lost an ACPA lawsuit in court, and it provides an important data point confirming that domaining can be cybersquatting (a previously unresolved issue). I also believe that this is the first time a domain name registrar has lost an ACPA lawsuit. Although the court wasn't asked to assess damages (it was just an injunction request), it's clear from the strongly worded opinion that Verizon will get paid if the case gets that far. As a result, this is a major loss for domainers and might very well force them to change their practices.

The defendants are Navigation Catalyst, a domainer, and Basic Fusion, its registrar. Navigation Catalyst engaged in some common domainer practices, including:

• high volume automated domain name tasting. Many of the registered domains have nothing to do with anyone's trademark, but some were typographical error versions of Verizon's trademarks (allegedly, nearly 1400 were variations of Verizon's trademarks)
• trademark "scrubbing" of domain names during the tasting period (both an automated blacklist and a manual review)
• disabling ads on any challenged domains and offering to transfer those domain names to the trademark owner

Despite the scrubbing, Navigation Catalyst registered and kept 126 domain names that Verizon alleges infringe its trademark. Navigation Catalyst also tasted nearly 1300 other challenged domains, and as the court points out, made some money from those domains during the tasting period.

Navigation Catalyst's main defense is that it merely reserved the domains during the tasting period instead of "registering" them (the ACPA statutory requirement) because they hadn't paid for the domains prior to the end of the grace period. Not surprisingly, the court is completely unimpressed with this sophistry.

Further, the court determines that domain tasting is a bad faith intent to profit under the ACPA:

It is clear that their intent was to profit from the poor typing abilities of consumers trying to reach Plaintiffs' sites: what other value could there be in a name like ve3rizon.com? Further, the sites associated with these names often contained links to products directly competitive with Plaintiffs' cellphone and internet businesses, potentially diverting consumers who would otherwise have purchased goods or services from Plaintiffs away from Plaintiffs.

Finally, the defendants tried to argue that Verizon had unclean hands because of Verizon's monetization of wildcard traffic in its FIOS service. Despite some pretty apparent duplicity on Verizon's part, this argument also fell on deaf ears.

While this is a big loss for the domainer, it's a shocking ruling against the registrar. After all, the ACPA specifically limits injunctions against domain name registrars (see 15 USC 1114(2)(d)(i)(II)), and the court did not discuss this section at all or otherwise why an injunction against the registrar was appropriate. I suspect the registrar should be able to get the court to clarify or reconsider its ruling if it asks.

It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects the domainer industry. There is absolutely no good news for them in this ruling. This court rejected the standard risk-management that domainers claim protect them from cybersquatting liability. Further, the big win will only encourage Verizon—already one of the most aggressive plaintiffs against domainers—to keep suing, and it might spur other trademark owners to join the party. Although a single ruling like this often doesn't change an industry overnight, I wouldn't be surprised if we look back in a couple of years and point to this ruling as the beginning of the end of standard domaining practices circa 2007-08.

Posted by mikki at 01:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once upon a time in Narnia, a little Scots boy lost a battle with corporate lawyers … - The Scotsman:


AN 11-YEAR-OLD boy was last night ordered by a court to hand back his birthday present – a Narnia-based website address – after one of the biggest legal firms in the world said it belonged to its multi-millionaire client.
Comrie Saville-Smith, from Edinburgh, an avid fan of the CS Lewis novels, was given the domain name narnia.mobi as a gift by his parents after it became available online.

But yesterday the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Switzerland ruled in favour of New York-based law firm Baker & McKenzie, representing Lewis's estate, that the name belonged to its client.

Last night Gillian Saville-Smith, Comrie's mother and a writer, described the decision as a "scandalously one-sided appraisal of the evidence" and added: "We are shocked by the decision. We put up a spirited fight because we wanted to prove that you do not have to hand something over just because someone richer and more powerful tell you to do so."

The family's international legal battle began in April, when they received an unexpected and irate telephone call from the US lawyers demanding they hand over the domain name and threatening legal action.

The Saville-Smiths refused and rejected the offer of a refund for the cost of the site, then another offer asking them to set their own price for the address.

Mrs Saville-Smith and her husband, Richard, a charity adviser and accountant, had paid £70 for the domain name from the internet registration company Fasthosts, keeping it as a surprise for their son's 11th birthday to coincide with release of the film of the second Narnia book last month.

They then received a 128-page legal document before the case went before the WIPO.

Responding to yesterday's judgment, Mrs Saville-Smith continued: "This decision by a one-man panel, supposed to be impartial, allows a multi-million-dollar company to seize a domain name purchased entirely legitimately by ourselves which has not been used in any way improperly or illegally.

"We provided clear statements and evidence to prove we had not profited, nor sought to, from this domain name – yet these statements and evidence have simply been ignored.

"Our lawyer has presided over 80 World Intellectual Property Organisation panels. It is clear from the judgment that the panel had pre-decided to award the decision to the CS Lewis Company.

"There was absolutely no evidence of a 'bad faith' registration put forward by the CS Lewis Company's lawyer's, which was required by the WIPO rules to find against us.

"Justice has not been served, and instead the interests of corporate power and money have wrongly triumphed. 'Narnia' had great meaning before its huge commercialisation in recent years and this judgment effectively says money, not the truth, is all that matters now regarding CS Lewis's magnificent fictional kingdom – despite the values and spirituality that originally lay behind it."

The Saville-Smiths said they could not afford to continue the legal fight.

Stranger than fiction? How the tale unfolded

30 APRIL: Law firm Baker & McKenzie calls and demands that the Saville-Smiths hand over the domain name.

5 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith writes to firm: "You seek an amicable settlement, but in your first contact you threaten my wife with legal action."

8 MAY: Law firm e-mails: "Please advise whether you would be willing to transfer the domain name to CS Lewis Pte Ltd."

8 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith replies: "I am not infringing their trademark, so I see no reason why I should to accede to your request."

Later that day the law firm contacts the family, saying: "What would you consider a reasonable offer?"

9 MAY: Mr Saville-Smith writes back: "We don't want to sell the domain name, as it is a special present for a ten-year-old boy."

28 MAY: The family receives a copy of a 128-page legal complaint filed with the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Switzerland.

Posted by mikki at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ICM Registry, Applicant of the Proposed .XXX Domain, Files Independent Review Petition Against ICANN:


In a public letter posted on ICM Registry's Website, Stuart Lawley, Chairman and President of the organization has announced that last week an independent review petition against ICANN was filed. In March 2007, ICM's application for a new .XXX Top-Level Domain (TLD) was rejected by ICANN after a three year long process costing ICM reportedly over US$ 4 million in total (view all related posting). Following is the text from today's announcement... More...

Posted by mikki at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

FTC Halts Cross Border Domain Name Con Artists:


A U.S. District Court Judge has ordered a halt to the illegal practices of Canadian operators who deceptively posed as domain name registrars and sent bogus bills to thousands of U.S. small businesses and nonprofit organizations for their annual "WEBSITE ADDRESS LISTING." Many of the businesses and nonprofits believed they would lose their domain names unless they paid the bill, so they paid. The Federal Trade Commission alleged that in most cases the defendants did not provide domain registration services, did not provide the "search optimization" services it claimed to provide, and bilked small businesses and nonprofits out of millions of dollars. More...

Posted by mikki at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

CIRA Creates Backdoor WHOIS Exceptions for Police and IP Owners:


Earlier this year, I wrote glowingly about the new CIRA whois policy, which took effect today and which I described as striking the right balance between access and privacy. The policy was to have provided new privacy protection to individual registrants — hundreds of thousands of Canadians — by removing the public disclosure of their personal contact information (though the information is collected and stored by domain name registrars).

Apparently I spoke too soon. Faced with the prospect of a privacy balance, special interests representing law enforcement and trademark holders quietly pressured CIRA to create a backdoor that will enable these two groups (and these two groups alone) to have special access to registrant information. In the case of law enforcement, police can bring cases to CIRA involving immediate risk to children or the Internet (ie. denial-of-service attacks) and CIRA will hand over registrant information without court oversight. In the case of trademark holders (as well as copyright and patent owners), claims that a domain name infringes their rights will be enough to allow CIRA to again disclose registrant information.

This represents a stunning about-face after years of public consultation on the whois policy. While the law enforcement exception appears to be narrowly tailored, the exception for trademark, copyright, and patent interests undermines a crucial part of the whois policy, namely compliance with Canadian privacy law (the policy now arguably violates the law) and the appropriate balance between privacy and access. For example, consider a Canadian that registers companysucks.ca (name your company) as a whistleblower site about a particular company. They understandably wish to remain anonymous to the general public since disclosure of their personal information could lead to negative repercussions. Under the new CIRA policy, if they use fake registrant information, they risk losing the domain. On the other hand, the backdoor exception means that the trademark holder can easily smoke out the identity of the registrant as CIRA will simply hand over this information.

Just over six weeks ago, CIRA celebrated its one millionth domain name registration and claimed world class status. Today, the organization has betrayed the very principles of consultation upon which it was built and sent a discouraging message that special interests matter more its own members.

Posted by mikki at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Domain Names Users vs Domain Names Registrants:


Antony Van Couvering from names@work writes that ICANN's constituencies are a "bad idea". While I am not sure to agree with him on the general principle, he makes some interesting remarks. Among others, he points out that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) includes groups that seem to be redundant (the Business and Intellectual Property constituencies) and others like domainers which are not represented in the ICANN arena, yet are an integral part of the domain name business... More...

Posted by mikki at 04:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Domain-Name Error Redirect: Incentives and Solutions:


Some domainers, having forgone parking revenue to avoid any claims of trademark violation, have then found themselves thrown into legal trouble with trademark claimants because of actions taken by a third party (ISPs and PC manufacturers). In addition to the resulting direct legal cost, the possibility of action by a third party heightens uncertainty and steals management's attention away from its real job. The troubles for the domain name owner start when a surfer who enters in the browser an inactive domain name is redirected to a Web page with advertising instead of getting a page that says there is an input error... More...

Posted by mikki at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Registrars and Customer Service - Three Comments - Part 2:

This is a continuation of my previous note, "Registrars and Customer Service - Three Comments - Part 1".

One of the two letters was from Tim Ruiz of GoDaddy.  The gist of this letter was that the number of registrar complaints received by ICANN really was not significant enough to suggest that there is any problem with how registrars behave.

The number of complaints cited was 10,000 during 2006.

Sounds like a lot.

Sounds like a lot more when we realize that it is a rule-of-thumb of marketing and sales that for every customer complaint there are nine more who are angry but silent.

And it sounds like a lot more when we realize that a large number of domain name consumers are professional monetizers who are probably in bed with, or at least in the bedroom with, the registrars they work with - complaints from this quarter are probably rare.

That means that we are talking about at least 100,000 upset domain users out of a pool that mounts to those who actually use domain names as long-term stable identifiers - a pool that probably amounts to perhaps 10 million at best - so we are talking about a complaint rate of at least 1% per long-term domain name client per year.  That's a pretty significant problem rate, especially when measured as the expectency of a long-term domain owner over the lifetime of his/her ownership.

And the number of complaints seems even bigger when we realize that there are a lot of issues that people have simply learned to accept without complaint.  For example, was there a complaint when GoDaddy became a tool in a dispute and yanked someone's domain name, with 52 seconds notice?

And there are a lot of people who have simply given up - either because they don't know to whom they should complain, or have complained in the past and found the system to be a bowl of futile hope, or simply don't realize that they have been scrod.

So, from the same numbers I draw the opposite conclusion - I perceive that we have a serious issue between that part of the public who use domain names for what they were originally intended to be - long term stable identifiers on the internet - and the registrar/registry system that sells (or rents) those names.

Posted by mikki at 08:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Registrars and Customer Service - Three Comments - Part 3:

This is a continuation of my previous note, "Registrars and Customer Service - Three Comments - Part 1".

One of the two letters was from David Maher of PIR, the registry handling .org.

I have great respect for David Maher - he's one of the "white hats".  But in this instance I believe he is going down the wrong path.

Perhaps the most important sentence of his letter was this:

While I recognize that the registrar function is best served by a competitive business model, the Internet has become too important to all its users to allow pure competition to set the standards for customer service.

When it comes to domain names under ICANN we have never ever had a "competitive business model".

What we have had is a highly regulated marketplace in which there is little real choice between domain name products - ICANN has dictated many of the terms of sale, ICANN has dictated the major price components (reserving a hefty chunk for registries such as PIR and for ICANN), and ICANN has severely constrained the number of vendors in the marketplace.

In other words, we are already living in the world in which there is not pure competition, indeed no real competition at all, except on a thin price margin above the core cost components that ICANN reserves for registries and for ICANN.

Why is this so?  Why are we consumers of domain names to be treated as children and not allowed the full possible smorgasbord of domain name products that vendors might create?

Let me be even more specific - By implication my proposal for a domain name product, my .ewe TLD, is a danger to the internet because it does not follow ICANN's rules.

But I deny that new, and different, ideas such as .ewe represent a danger to the stability of the internet.  Yes, such ideas pose a danger to the business stability of the current ICANN-approved incumbents, but we have never as a modern society accepted that there should be such protected marketplaces absent a clear, compelling, and clearly articulated reason for such protection.

So what I would like to hear is this:  What are the reasons that require NTIA and its secular arm, ICANN, to require that the domain name marketplace be wrapped with restrictions and limitations that effectively turn the domain name marketplace into a medieval guild?

I'm not willing to accept vague platitudes - I want to hear specific and concrete reasons.  And my measure of stability is based on the technical ability of the internet and the upper tier of the domain name system to turn DNS query packets into DNS reply packets with dispatch, accuracy, and without prejudice for or against any query source or query target.

I am sure that someone will raise the bogeyman of business failure of a registry or registrar causing hapless domain name owners to become orphans with names that no longer work.  To me that's a business issue, or a consumer protection issue.  The resolution of such issues is a governmental legislative matter, not something for a body whose role is technical coordination.  And there are easy, non intrusive answers to this - my own suggestion is that those registries and registrars that want to demonstrate a commitment to protecting their customers actually engage in data escrow programs and yearly audit themselves and post a statement attesting that they engage in adequate data preservation practices that a successor in interest could pick up the pieces and restore operations.  Consumers can learn to look elsewhere if a registry or registrar does not do these things.  This kind of self-protection on the part of consumers would be greatly enhanced if ICANN were to remove its existing rule against long-term registration contracts.

Posted by mikki at 08:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Protection Of Personal Names In Domain Names:

David Pecker is the chairman of American Media, Inc., publisher of, among others, National Enquirer and Weekly World News. 'Mr. Ferris' registered the domain name DAVIDPECKER.COM, had a PPC company host it, where it was keyed to ads for porn, because, according to the registrant, the word PECKER was in the domain name. Mr. Pecker brought a UDRP.

Although 'Mr. Ferris' (as he is identified in the decision) did not seem (to me) that he could establish a bona fide intent to use the name in conenction with an offering of goods or services, and altohugh there seemed to be plausible evidence of bad faith, the UDRP was denied. Complainant could not establish rights in his name as a trademark:

" A number of disputes under the Policy have involved personal names, as here, and the panels’ decisions have been mixed on the issue of whether the complainants have rights in the names. See, e.g., Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560 (finding common law rights in “Tom Cruise”); and The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184 (finding no rights in “Jerry Falwell”).

Indeed, the issue of rights in personal names has generated enough cases and raised enough questions that the matter has been addressed by the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, which states: “While the UDRP does not specifically protect personal names, in situations where an unregistered personal name is being used for trade or commerce, the complainant can establish common law trademark rights in the name.” “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, paragraph 1.6, “http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html” (visited January 15, 2007).

. . .

In this case, Complainant has provided no evidence of his rights in the Disputed Domain Name other than broad assertions that he “is known nationally and internationally by the name David Pecker and his high profile name is linked inextricably with AMI and is cited frequently by the media”, and an affidavit from AMI’s assistant general counsel that Complainant “possesses a strong common law service mark in his name by virtue of his position as being one of the leaders in the publishing industry… David Pecker’s personal fame and reputation have caused his name, as a leader in the publishing industry and as Chairman and CEO of AMI, to acquire a secondary meaning in the industry. Complainant’s name is used to promote AMI and the public understands his name as referring to AMI”. While these statements may well be true, it is nevertheless incumbent on a complainant, except in the most obvious cases, to provide evidence in support of a claim to rights in a personal name for the purposes of the Policy. . . . It is also unclear to the Panel on the evidence provided whether, as required by the Policy in such cases, Mr. Pecker “has ever used his personal name for the purpose of advertising or promoting his business or for the sale of any goods or services”. Joacim Bruus-Jensen v. John Adamsen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0458.

. . .

In light of the above, the Panel is not convinced, based on the limited record before it, that Complainant has established rights in the name “David Pecker” for the purpose of this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not succeeded in proving the first element of the Policy.

[HOWEVER]

Complainant’s lack of success in this proceeding in proving its rights in the name “David Pecker” does not necessarily mean that Complainant has no remedy. “He may have claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (‘ACPA’), which expressly provides for protection of personal names, or perhaps his actions lie in tort. Complainant is free to pursue his claims in U.S. courts.” The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184.

Note: Complainant has indicated he is considering an ACPA proceeding.

Comment: Entertainers usually fare better in UDRPs than well-known executives, as it tends to be easer for them to show, in the absence of a registration, that their names function as common law trademarks for the entertainment services they provide. That should be some comfort for PETER O'TOOLE.

Posted by mikki at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

IE Namespace: We Need Personal Domains!:


In my day job I run one of the largest registrars / resellers of IE domains (the IE ccTLD is the domain name for Ireland). In the course of doing that I have spent quite a lot of time becoming accustomed to the rules and regulations that govern both the naming and general registration criteria of IE domains. In some cases I can understand why rules are the way they are, whereas in others I am completely baffled... more...

Posted by mikki at 06:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Top Domain Name News Stories of 2006:


Record-breaking domain sales, acquisitions, and growing industry credibility all highlight a critical year for the domain name industry. The domain name industry had a heck of a year. It's impossible to rank the top news stories of 2006, but I'm going to make an attempt... Let's talk about it before the end of the year; then let's look forward to a fantastic 2007. more...

Posted by mikki at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So if you were smart enough and had enough vision to get your domain name at the beginning the advent of the Internet turned commerce boom, you may lose your name anyway if the registrars suddenly decide to charge you more because your name is cooler than someone else's. And who does that benefit? Not small businesses or individuals...

ICANN Confirms: Tiered Pricing Not Forbidden in New .BIZ, .INFO and .ORG Contracts:


I finally got the "official" word from Vint Cerf of ICANN, "on the record", who confirmed that my interpretation is correct, that differential/tiered pricing on a domain-by-domain basis would not be forbidden under the .biz/info/org proposed contracts. This means that the registries could charge $100,000/yr for sex.biz, $25,000/yr for movies.org, etc. if they wanted to -- it would not be forbidden the way the proposed contracts are currently written. This would represent a powerful pricing weapon for registries, and a fundamental shift in possible domain name pricing, that could lead them to emulate .tv-style price schedules. It doesn't mean they will necessarily do it, but it's not forbidden. When a contract doesn't forbid something bad, it implicitly allows it... more...

Posted by mikki at 01:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yahoo Fails To Obtain YAHU.CON and YAHU.COM.CN:

Pacific Epoch: Yahoo lost an appeal to obtain the names YAHU.COM and YAHU.COM.CN in China. The article states that the current registrant's name has the same pinyin, or phonetic rendering in roman characters, but uses different Chinese characters.

Posted by mikki at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Conflict of Opinion:


If a UDRP panelist believes domainers are the same thing as cybersquatters, is he fit to arbitrate? I came across an editorial on CNET today by Doug Isenberg, an attorney in Atlanta and founder of GigaLaw.com, and a domain name panelist for the World Intellectual Property Organization. The guest editorial focuses on Whois privacy and why it's imperative to maintain open access to registrant data for intellectual property and legal purposes. That's a common opinion I've read a million times. Nothing groundbreaking there. But then I was shocked to read that Isenberg generalizes domainers as cybersquatters: "Today, cybersquatters have rebranded themselves as 'domainers.' Popular blogs and news sites track their activities..." more...

Posted by mikki at 10:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Macabre Result Avoided in Mortician Domain Name Case:


If a court won't let you use your own name, you might feel like you're a mere ghost of your former self. That happened to Ed Kalis of Broward County, Florida. In a recent case, Florida's court of appeal considered whether a trial court's order against Kalis, enjoining him from using his own last name in various means of advertising and in the URL for his company's website, was proper. The appellate court held that the injunction was overkill. more...

Posted by mikki at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Morgan Stanley takes domain name from cat | The Register:


A cat has lost its bid to retain a controversial domain name after a multinational investment bank took it to the National Arbitration Forum.

Baroness Penelope Cat of Nash DCB, who is listed as the owner of mymorganstanleyplatinum.com and was given some assistance in the case by Michael Woods, lost control of the domain to Morgan Stanley.

A key part of the case rested on whether or not Baroness Penelope was truly the owner of the domain. The first indication that the decision was unlikely to veer cat-wards came in the written decision of Arbitration Forum Panellist Richard Hill.

"Respondent maintains that it is a cat, that is, a well-known carnivorous quadruped which has long been domesticated," summarised Hill. "However, it is equally well-known that the common cat, whose scientific name is Felis domesticus, cannot speak or read or write."

Baroness Penelope argued in its submission that "the registration information is not false; there are an immense number of Domain Names registered by non human beings".

Hill was not to be swayed, however. "A common cat could not have submitted the Response (or even have registered the disputed domain name)," he wrote. "Therefore, either Respondent is a different species of cat, such as the one that stars in the motion picture 'Cat From Outer Space,' or Respondent's assertion regarding its being a cat is incorrect."

"If Respondent is in fact a cat from outer space, then it should have so indicated in its reply, in order to avoid unnecessary perplexity by the Panel."

In order to retain the domain name, Baroness Penelope had to fulfill three criteria. Having failed the first two, the case rested on whether or not having a cat as a registered owner of a domain constituted "bad faith". Hill ruled that it did.

Baroness Penelope was uncontactable for comment at the time of going to press.

See: the ruling

Posted by mikki at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fun facts about domain names:


Blog: Some things you may not know about domain names: There are 17,576 possible three-letter combinations, and all of them are registered....

Posted by mikki at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Internet Gambling, The ICANN Way: Using Someone Else's Wallet:

Bret Fausett's blog quoted Stratton Sclavos (CEO of Verisign) as saying that every week Verisign's registry gets
7,000,000 name registrations but that only 0.6% (42,000) of those last more than 5
days.

Wow!

In other words, for every "normal" registration transaction there are 167 five-day speculative registration transactions (plus an additional 167 drop transactions.)  Thus for every normal registration there are 333 speculative transactions (i.e. one normal add transaction and 167 5-day add/drop transaction pairs.)

And, it seems from what I've been able to discover so far, but I'd certainly like clarification, that Verisign receives revenue only for the "normal" registration transactions but has to eat the cost of the 5-day add/drop transaction pairs.

Which, if true, means that the registry fee charged for each normal registration transaction has to cover the cost of 333 speculative registry transactions.  That's a heavy and unjustifiable burden.

I have long assumed that the actual cost of registry operations is down in the 1 cent per year range.  I'm not alone in this belief.

We know that Verisign isn't losing money with the $6 registry fee.  And if we take into account the 1:333 ratio of normal-to-speculative registrations we see that the actual registry transaction fee has to be below $0.02, with the "normal" customer picking up the tab for 333 speculative transactions.

One of the reasons that Joe Sims, ICANN's architect-apparent of the ICANN-Verisign agreement, said in a posting at Circle-ID is that this new .com agreement was needed was to encourage Verisign to invest in infrastructure.

However, according to Sclavos statement, apparently the vast bulk of that infrastructure is there to support speculation rather than "normal" name registrations.

And that's not even counting the infrastructure that Verisign has to maintain to handle the stupid system of polling by registrars who circle like vultures waiting for names to drop.

In other words, those of us who consume domain names in the "normal" way, i.e. we use 'em for long terms, appear to be carrying an enormous burden (measured in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars per year in inflated registry fees) to support the ICANN allowed, if not ICANN created, speculative fever.

And yet, those of us who pay this tab get no vote in ICANN and simply get to pay the bill every year, year-in/year-out.

To the degree that my speculations (pun intended) are accurate, ICANN and its registry system are building up an enormous pool of money that one could claim has been dragged out of domain name buyers because ICANN is a combination in restraint of trade that can't be bypassed because ICANN occupies a monopoly position that is buttressed by a very shadowy governmental presence.

It is appalling to be reminded, once again, of how badly ICANN has damaged the internet.  Rather than creating a domain name system that is rich in competition and innovation we find, after over half a decade of ICANN blundering, that the domain name system marketplace is devoid of real competition except among registries and even there the only real difference is price.  Rather than low prices that reflect underlying economies of scale we see a system that grossly subsidizes speculators out of the pockets of normal internet users to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars every year.  Under ICANN's hand innovative domain name providers have been arbitrarily denied the right to go into business and those who do get ICANN's blessing are required to follow rules that subordinate user and business choice to the desires of ICANN's "stakeholders" and to pay large fees to support ICANN's ever growing bureaucracy.  And ICANN created FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is used to besmirch those who suggest that ICANN's approach is as empty as the Emperor's fabled wardrobe.

Update: I've been wondering whether a decimal point has been slipped and that the real number is 6% rather then 0.6%.  That is more consistent with a steady-state of roughly 40 to 50 million names in .com.

But even if the number is 6% that still means that to 420,000 paying registrations are supporting the cost of 6,580,000 freeloading speculative transactions.  That's still an egregious subsidy being paid by normal domain name users.

Posted by mikki at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Answers from Vint Cerf: The Road Ahead for Top-Level Domains:


Earlier this year we requested your questions on one of ICANN's most heated discussions -- issues involving top-level domains (TLDs) -- which we passed on to Vint Cerft, Google's VP and Chief Internet Evangelist and chairman of the board of ICANN. Despite an understandably heavy schedule, Vint Cerf has taken the time to personally respond to more questions than we had originally anticipated. So with a special thanks, here are his responses. more...

Posted by mikki at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Chinese Net Routes Around Political Stonewalling:


According to this BBC story,
the Chinse government got tired of waiting for ICANN to approve top level domains in non-Roman characters
and rolled their own for use in China, using a combination of client-side software, domain name translation by ISPs, and other hacks to make it work.

With 110 million people online, China is already the second largest net-using nation on Earth.

Big push for Chinese net domains,
By Mark Ward,
Technology Correspondent, BBC News website

So the legendary recalcitrance of ICANN to move ahead with top level domains
has led to the world's largest country going ahead anyway, in order to promote their domestic economy.

Chinese domain names will no doubt occasionally leak out of China, e.g., on business cards
and in signatures of electronic mail messages, leading to confusion.
But that's a relatively small risk compared to a major nation being impeded in its use of the Internet.
If you see domain names ending in
.zhongguo, .gongsi, or .wangluo in Chinese characters, you're probably seeing such a leak.
(I take the first of these names to be the Chinese name for China; can someone tell me what the other two are?)
Note that .zhongguo.cn, .gongsi.cn, and .wangluo.cn already exist under the .CN top level domain,
so if you see those, you're not seeing a leak.

Commercial companies may want to consider that if they don't deliver what the customers want,
somebody else probably will, and on the Internet the somebody else may be in a different company
in a different legal regime that won't be impressed by patent thickets or trademarks.

-jsq

Posted by mikki at 10:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Domain Name Containing Trademark Translation is Determined Confusingly Similar:


Interesting WIPO case (D2005-1085): Complainant (Saint-Exupery estate) owns "Le Petit Prince" in EU, US, and other countries. The translation of "Le Petit Prince" is "The little prince". Respondent registered 'thelittleprince.com'. Is such a domain name confusingly similar to the trademark? more...

Posted by mikki at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WIPO Crowing Again About "Cybersquatting":


Most of us would be put off if a court issued a press release cheering the number of prisoners its judges had put behind bars or the number of tenants it had helped landlords to evict. That seems antithetical to the neutral adjudication of disputes, and ethical rules regularly decry such "appearance of bias." Yet WIPO seems to think it perfectly natural to crow about its arbitrators' favoritism for complainants against "cybersquatters" in UDRP proceedings. It issued a release that reads like a solicitation for trademark claimants' business, not a promotion of neutral arbitration services...

Posted by mikki at 12:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Revisiting the idea (the very stupid idea) of sponsored top level domains:

ICANN loves "sponsored" top level domains.  It has given us
TLDs for co-ops, Catalonian speakers, "professionals" (except for the
world's oldest profession), travel businesses, etc.

That world of "sponsored" TLDs is so exciting and vibrant! 
And so useful too!

So in a moment of unrestrained excitement over sponsored TLDs, I have come up
with some ideas for new sponsored TLDs.

I'll begin with ".family".  And by this I don't mean
some neutered and sterile Disneyesque kind of family.  Appropriate
residents under my .family would present content describing how families
are created, including biological details, and methods for keeping control of
family size (which would, of course, include those providing abortion services.)

And then I'd add ".christian" (and other TLDs for other
major religions.)  As sponsor I'd be able to say who is worthy to have a
name under .christian and who is not.  For starters, I'd make sure
that the list of excluded names includes "Robertson",
"Dobson", "Falwell" - they would be vectored over to the .ElmerGantry
TLD.

And then there's ".fruitcake".  This TLD would give
free names to those who claim to have been kidnapped by space aliens, 
practice feline phrenology, or believe that "intelligent
design" should be taught in schools.

What is ICANN's policy about "sponsored" TLDs doing to the
internet?  The best way to answer is to draw a parallel:  What ICANN
is doing to the internet is similar to what would have happened had some 16th
century ICANN forced Gutenburg to use his new printing press to print nothing
but Sharper Image catalogues and Wal Mart flyers.

Posted by mikki at 04:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is a Domain Name Property?:


In an article by Sheldon Burshtein, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, the author examines the view on whether domain names are properties. The following is the abstract of this article: "...Domain names have become increasingly valuable assets, in some respects more valuable than trade marks. A domain name may identify not only the source of the goods, services, business or information, but also the virtual location of the source, much as an address or telephone number does. However, there is still a significant unresolved issue as to whether a domain name is a form of intangible property or merely a contractual right."

Posted by mikki at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The "Parked Domain Monetization" Business:


I think that a large number of people buying domains can't get their first choice name because some "parked domain monetization" operation (cyber-squatter) owns it and is making money running ads on the page. The trick is to sign up for millions of domain names; set up pages and run ads on them; after 1 day delete domains that have no traffic; after 3 days delete names that have some traffic; after 5 days delete pages with marginal traffic; keep the 1% of pages that have enough traffic to be worth keeping the domain. Because of the refund policy, the 99% of pages deleted before the 5 day grace period are refunded in full and the "monetizer" gets to keep the ad revenue generated over those 5 days. ...Interestingly, I think Google AdSense probably has boosted the viability of this business.

Posted by mikki at 01:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Five More Years! There Was No "Deal" and WSIS Resolved Nothing:


The basic problem posed by WSIS was the role of national governments and national sovereignty in global Internet governance. That conflict remains completely unresolved by the WSIS document. The document's thinking is still based on the fiction that there is a clear divide between "public policy" and the "day to day operation" of the Internet, and assumes that governments should be fully in control of the policy-setting function. Moreover, new organizational arrangements are being put into place which will carry on that debate for another 5 years, at least. The new Internet Governance Forum is a real victory for the civil society actors, but also fails to resolve the basic issue regarding the role of governments and sovereignty. Although called for and virtually created by civil society actors, the language authorizing its creation asks to involve all stakeholders "in their respective roles." In other words, we still don't know whether this Forum will be based on true peer-peer based interactions among governments, business and civil society, or whether it will reserve special policy making functions to governments.

Posted by mikki at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Flushing the 'Net Down the Tubes:


Doc Searls has written a brilliant piece framing the battle for the 'Net at Linux Journal. The piece is long, but if you take the time to read just one essay on the 'Net and the politics surround it this year, read this one. If you're involved in public policy, it's especially important that you take the time to understand what's at stake here. One of Doc's main points: we haven't framed the conversation correctly and our poor choice of words makes the argument seem overly technical and arcane when it's really about freedom, markets, and innovation.

Posted by mikki at 11:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

News Website Can Keep Domain Name After Trademark Fight:

AcompliaReport.com Settles Fair Use Dispute with Drug Company

San Francisco - A medical news website, with the assistance of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), has settled a dispute with a French pharmaceutical giant over using the name of a trademarked medication, Acomplia.

The settlement came after EFF filed suit on behalf of the AcompliaReport.com, an independent online newsletter devoted to reporting about a drug called Acomplia. Acomplia may help consumers lose weight and quit smoking, but is not yet approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since March 2004, AcompliaReport.com has published original news and commentary about Acomplia's clinical trials, the drug approval process, and anti-obesity drugs in general—all aimed at helping consumers make more informed decisions about their health.

To emphasize the newsletter's impartiality, every page has always included the subhead "your independent source of news and reviews about the new diet drug Acomplia." Nevertheless, drug maker Sanofi-Aventis claimed that the use of the term "Acomplia" in the AcompliaReport domain name created a "risk of confusion." Sanofi asked an international arbitrator to order the domain name transferred, alleging that the publisher of the AcompliaReport, Milton R. Benjamin, was a cybersquatter. Benjamin promptly sought a declaration from a U.S. district court protecting his right to the domain name, claiming both fair use and First Amendment rights to the name as an online publisher.

"Sanofi's tactics threatened to quash free and accurate speech," said EFF staff attorney Corynne McSherry. "The website uses the Acomplia mark solely to refer to Sanofi's product. That use is a textbook fair use. And basic First Amendment principles barred Sanofi from using trademark law to shut down an independent news site."

Under terms of Tuesday's settlement, AcompliaReport.com keeps its domain name, as long as there is a disclaimer stating that the website is not associated with Sanofi-Aventis.

"We are happy to have this absurd dispute behind us, enabling us to focus on independent coverage of the regulatory process and further development of a novel drug that appears to have the potential to be of considerable benefit to many people," said Benjamin. "A news site needs to be able to use a trademarked name in order to report on a trademarked product."

Contact:

Corynne McSherry
Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
corynne@eff.org

Posted by mikki at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tech firms back Bush Net effort | CNET News.com:


WASHINGTON--Less than two weeks before a United Nations summit on the Internet begins, technology firms including Google, IBM and Microsoft are supporting the Bush administration's efforts to maintain the United States' unique influence over domain names.

In what amounted to a public effort to back the status quo, those firms sent representatives to an event here organized to highlight what some participants touted as the security and stability of the current form of Internet governance. MCI, BellSouth and Cisco Systems also participated.

Because it's home to 200 million Internet users and nearly half of the world's electronic commerce, the United States is in a unique position to ensure there's not a slowdown in Net growth, Michael D. Gallagher, the U.S. Commerce Department's assistant secretary for communications and information, said at the event. The gathering was organized by the Information Technology Association of America.

"The U.S. does not support top-down intergovernmental control of the Internet," Gallagher said at a panel discussion composed of technology industry and government representatives. "We do not believe in adding an inter-governmental layer of bureaucracy over such a dynamic medium as the Internet."

Posted by mikki at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

WIPO Panel Splits on Descriptiveness of bocaresorts.com: "An arbitration panel of the World Intellectual Property Organization has decided 2-1 in favor of Complainant Boca Raton Resort & Club in an action under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy over the domain name bocaresorts.com. ...The Presiding Panelist, Dennis Foster, disagreed with the majority's conclusion, and issued a dissent that addressed the issue of bad faith. Foster asserted that the Respondent was 'entitled to believe that the phrase 'Boca Resorts' is geographically descriptive and means resorts in the city of Boca Raton, Florida..."

(Via CircleID: All Posts.)

Posted by mikki at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Breaking the Internet HOWTO: "A number of people, notably Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information Society and Media, have been asking about how to Break The Internet. Since Mme Reding seems to have absolutely no prior experience in the Information Technology, Computing or Telecommunications industries, I have prepared this brief HOWTO. '1. Declare the creation of a new Root Zone. This is the easy bit - all you have to do is spout great volumes of hot air at a conference in Geneva, and then storm out in a huff when other people refuse to take you seriously. Then you get the PFY who services your photocopier to declare the creation of a new European Root Zone! Hooray!'"

(Via CircleID: All Posts.)

Posted by mikki at 02:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Non-Parity of the UDRP: "The UDRP is obviously not working. Two websites, fundamentally the same (criticism at trademark.tld), two opposite decisions, both within weeks of each other! A Complainant (Biocryst Pharmaceuticals Inc) initiated a complaint to WIPO about one of my criticism websites (biocrystpharmaceuticals.com). The Panel found in my favour. Another Complainant (Eastman Chemical Inc) meanwhile made a complaint to NAF regarding another of my criticism websites (eastman-chemical.com). The Panel found..."

(Via CircleID.)

Posted by mikki at 02:20 PM | Permalink

Domain Name Dispute Puts Dot-Ca in the Spotlight: "My weekly Law Bytes column (freely available hyperlinked version, Toronto Star version) focuses on the recent Canadian parliamentary discussion on domain name disputes. As discussed about ten days ago, the impetus for governmental interest in domain name disputes and Internet governance is the registration of several..."

(Via CircleID.)

Posted by mikki at 07:06 AM | Permalink

But why are there NO provisions to protect small businesses and/or speech interests in new gTLDs? Why indeed.

New domains must protect trade marks, says WIPO | The Register: "A uniform intellectual property protection mechanism should be established to protect trade marks whenever new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are introduced, according to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The recommendation has been made in a report submitted to ICANN, the body that manages the internet’s domain name system, which asked WIPO for expert advice on IP issues involved in the introduction of gTLDs last year."

(Via The Register.)

Posted by mikki at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yet another important Domain Name as Speech case is playing itself out in Richmond, VA. We are, of course, hoping that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the previous ruling. Again, this is a case of criticism that should be allowed to stand as such, and its non commercial status should be ruled as completely outside of trademark law.

Trademark law was carved out of the First Amendment to protect the CONSUMER (not the maker of a product or holder of a trademark) from confusion as to the source of a product or service. Few consumers could possibly be stupid enough to figure that a criticism site was written by the target of the criticism.

USATODAY.com - Court hears Falwell Web domain arguments: " RICHMOND, Va. — A Web site critical of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's views on gays contains constitutionally protected, noncommercial speech and should be allowed to keep its name — a common misspelling for the conservative evangelist, a lawyer for the site owner argued Thursday. Christopher Lamparello of New York City, who operates fallwell.com, took his case to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to reverse a federal judge's ruling that he violated federal trademark law. A lawyer for Falwell maintained Lamparello's use of a variation of the preacher's name bordered on theft. "It's been wrong to steal since Moses came down from the mountain," attorney John H. Midlen Jr. said.

(Via USA Today.)

Posted by mikki at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An Infrastrure TLD - Avoiding the Side Effects of Today's .net: "

I've mentioned before that there is something special about the .net top level domain - in particular .net is the place where the legacy root DNS servers and most of the TLD servers are to be found. Thus, if .net were to wobble there is more than a strong chance that the DNS root and other TLDs would also begin to wobble. This kind of cross-dependency is something that A) is a risk to overall internet stability and B) is something that ICANN seems utterly unable to perceive.

So I ask this simple question: Why can't the domain names of the legacy root servers and TLD servers be moved to a new global infrastructure top level domain? Such a new TLD would be intrinsically much more stable than .net. In fact because the size would be small, a new infrastructure-only TLD could be readily cached and replicated, thus providing much more resiliency against attack and could be recovered much more quickly than .net should an attack be successful.

This new TLD should be used only for machines that provide services in support of DNS on a global basis (with the proviso that any server that delivers a TLD zone for any TLD, whether that TLD is ICANN approved or not, should be considered 'global infrastructure'.)

For the moment let's call this new TLD 'q8m', which is a short phrase without any annoying semantics (I hope).

Thus this infrastructure TLD would contain delegations for things like 'root-servers.q8m' and 'tld-servers.q8m' to replace the existing 'root-servers.net' and 'tld-servers.net'.

Anyone who wants to establish a group of infrastructure servers would register for a delegation in this this infrastructure TLD. The registration agreement would require that the registrant police the use of the delegation so that the resource records found via that delegation are all present for the exclusive purpose of providing infrastructure services.

In order to discourage spurious thrashing of the contents of this infrastructure TLD there should be a steeply ramped fee schedule for updates. The first 4 per year should be inexpensive ($25) but after that the fee should quickly ramp up to at least $100 per update.

Were this kind of infrastructure TLD to be established, much of the special nature of .net would be eliminated; a failure of .net would not then have the kind of destructive repercussions onto other parts of the internet that is now the case.

(Via CaveBear Blog.)

Posted by mikki at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wal-Mart on the Domain Name War Path: "Wal-Mart seems to have been particularly vigilant lately about protecting itself from third parties setting up websites critiquing Wal-Mart and its practices. ...Wal-Mart recently scored a victory in an arbitration proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ('UDRP') before the World Intellectual Property Organization ('WIPO') against Jeff Milchen, a self-proclaimed critic of Wal-Mart from Bozeman, Montana who registered the domain..."

(Via CircleID.)

Posted by mikki at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

ACPA Applies to Noncommercial Use of Domain Name

....Finally, Bosley argued that the conduct was actionable because Kremer used the domain name in connection with Bosley's goods and services. The Ninth Circuit disagreed with this rationale, found in the Fourth Circuit's decision People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001), because it would encompass a mark merely used as the object of criticism. In Kremer's case, no consumer would mistakenly try to buy goods or services from Kremer based on the use of Bosley's mark and Bosley was doing nothing to trade on Bosley's goodwill.

more here

Posted by mikki at 07:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nissan's Appeal Over Website Rejected: "   A refreshing ruling in the right to hold domain names whose content will not confuse the consumer as to the source of a product or service. Also a win against those who try to use the anti cybersquatting consumer protection act as a club wielded by bullies to take names that were registered first by others for their non infringing uses. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by Japanese automaker Nissan Motor Co. in its fight to block a North Carolina man from using his Nissan.net and Nissan.com websites to sell ads and make disparaging comments. Nissan Motor, which has trademarked its name, says Uzi Nissan is diverting consumers looking for the automaker's website. The justices made no comment in rejecting the appeal, included on a list of orders released in Washington. The case now returns to U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, where the two sides are still battling over additional issues. Nissan North America, the automaker's U.S. unit, is headquartered in Gardena. Uzi Nissan, who has used his last name in connection with various businesses since the 1980s, registered the Internet domain names in 1994 and 1996 to advertise a computer sales and service business, Nissan Computer Corp. More here

Posted by mikki at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

BBC NEWS | Technology | Legal row over iTunes domain name: "An internet entrepreneur is taking legal action against computer giant Apple over the iTunes domain name.

Benjamin Cohen, 22, registered itunes.co.uk in 2000, but earlier this month the UK domain name registry, Nominet, handed the name over to Apple.

Mr Cohen, of Hackney, east London, has applied to the High Court for a judicial review, saying Nominet is biased against small businesses.

But Nominet say legal experts found Mr Cohen was abusing his registration."

more here

Posted by mikki at 11:16 AM | Permalink

So why are people surprised by this? WIPO is simply following the ICANN model. If a group that claims it is "open and transparent" can be allowed to have meetings in places where they KNOW that public interest people can't afford to go, and although a few people make noise about it, the organization it supposedly reports to (NTIA) does nothing, why can't WIPO follow suit? After all, WIPO has never claimed to be open and transparent, and has ALWAYS been up front about its mandate to protect intellectual property interests.

...and nobody is allowed to show up?

Or, in another clever variation of the theme, you're told to meet in separate groups somewhere far away, where it's too expensive for those who support your position to join you?

Yesterday I provided the fleetest of updates on the first scenario. Cory did a better job of it over at BoingBoing, capturing in a few typically vivid sentences where we are in the struggle to introduce public-interest considerations to WIPO decsionmaking:

When I first got involved [in WIPO], I wasn't sure that we could make a different against this monolithic, enormous institution, but these days, I'm less worried: WIPO has been fighting the participation of public interest groups with the kinds of dirty tricks that indicate that they're running scared, which means that we're doing something right.

Regional consultations are generally held in far-flung corners of the world, unreachable by civil society NGOs [non-government organizations] on a low budget and less likely to covered by the press. There are generally no formal requirements to invite any single country, and some countries have argued that the Casablanca meeting excluded countries that expressed vocal opposition to the wealthy nations' proposals.

As I've written before, it's very important that we shine as bright a light as possible on what's happening here.

It's tough to write about WIPO; you spend half your time unraveling acronyms, the other sending off flares to convey the urgency of the situation. But your voice here is very important. Most "big media" outlets aren't covering this story, and that's a huge advantage for the powers-that-be. If you're reading this post, please take a few minutes to write about how important it is that WIPO abandons these tricks and begins the real discussion about pursuing IP law and policy that serves the world majority rather than only a tiny minority of powerful entertainment companies.

Posted by mikki at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As facts unfold, and the NTIA's decision to take away our privacy comes to light, it is interesting to see the NTIA struggling to explain its decision. Keep in mind that an "as yet to be identified" bureaucrat made this decision to take away your privacy, did it without notice, and without holding hearings. Those affected were not given an opportunity to explain how the loss of privacy would negatively affect them. Quite simply, this is NOT how our government is supposed to work.... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 11:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Once again the US Government has sided with the Intellectual Property cartel and ignored practical privacy intereests.

Many registrars have gotten complacent about reforming the Whois-Privacy relationship. After all, they can sell additional privacy protection to their subscribers for an extra $5-10. Seems like a perfect "market oriented" interim solution, as the so-called "bottom up" policy development process of ICANN figures out how to provide tiered access. Not so fast. [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While much has been stripped out of the end-of-year copyright bill that passed the Senate over the weekend S. 3021 (pdf), much that's harmful remains. Particularly egregious is a provision that hasn't gotten much attention, the "Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act." Ostensibly aimed at infringers who hide behind false domain name registrations, the provision seriously penalizes those who merely want to protect their privacy.

Because there's no way to opt-out of publication of private address information in the WHOIS database when you register a domain name, your choices are to expose your address and phone number; use a possibly unreliable intermediary; or fake it. Unfortunately, if you choose the last option and FOISA passes, you'll now be presumed to be a willful infringer of copyright or trademark. A critic who makes liberal use of a company trademark, or a commentator who quotes a chunk from another's text, both now face a much steeper hurdle in their fair use defenses.

Also in the bill are criminal penalties for making available a single "pre-release" work and for recording a movie while it's playing in a theater. I'm not arguing that this infringement is right, but it's not the kind of thing we should be sending kids to jail for, either.

The bill adds an entirely new Title VII, "Professional Boxing Safety." Since the whole thing still has to pass the House, let's hope someone there finds this objectionable enough to KO the bill.

Posted by mikki at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Slashdot recently ran a story about the upcoming changes to the ICANN rules governing domain transfers between registrars. A blog entry at Netcraft referenced by the story stated that: "...domain transfer requests will be automatically approved in five days unless they are explicitly denied by the account owner. This is a change from current procedure, in which a domain's ownership and nameservers remain unchanged if there is no response to a transfer request. This could mean trouble... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We've previously noted here the challenge of dealing with domain name disputes based on personal names, particularly in the political arena. Now that the campaigns are over and all are taking a deep breath, we can reflect back on one of the domain name disputes arising in the political campaign this year for the office of State's Attorney in Will County Illinois. [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A good article attempting to explain the fallacy of using Whois in a manner that it was never intended for.

Before starting I'd like to remind you that there are two distinct Whois systems -- the one for IP address delegations and one for DNS registrations. I believe that the former is a useful system in which there are clear utility values that outweigh the privacy costs, and in which the person whose privacy is exposed has made a knowing choice. I do not believe that these arguments apply to the latter, the DNS, form of Whois. [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 12:25 PM | Permalink

What fun. If it's not broke, break it.

This morning, at 10 am in 2141 Rayburn, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property is holding a hearing on "Internet Domain Name Fraud -- New Criminal and Civil Enforcement Tools." At that hearing, the Subcommittee will be considering a new Whois bill creating new penalties for people who provide false data when registering a domain name. We need to raise our collective eyebrows at this bill (which was suddenly dropped the evening before this hearing).... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:21 AM | Permalink

JRR Tolkien's estate wins a cyber-squatting case to stop the Oxford author's name being used as a web address. [BBC News | TECHNOLOGY]

Posted by mikki at 09:48 AM | Permalink

From CircleID

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has been studying the issue of Internet navigation and the DNS. The study was undertaken at the request of Congress to "provide analysis and advice for consideration by agencies of the U.S. Government, interested international institutions, and other stakeholders." In addition to examining technological issues, the study is also considering "relevant legal, economic, political, and social issues...because technologies related to the DNS... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 10:03 AM | Permalink

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) -- the same organization whose head recently equated intellectual property infringement with terrorism -- has been pressing ICANN to add domain name monopolies on the names of countries, and the names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations, into the Uniform Domain Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Despite the fact that no-one but WIPO seems to want these new exclusions, a working group has nonetheless been convened to... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 03:51 PM | Permalink

On Saturday, November 29, 2003 a post on the GNSO mailing list indicated that the .name registry website had been hacked. As reported by George Kirikos, "The .name registry's main website www.nic.name has been hacked, as of Saturday evening in North America. According to Netcraft, they're running Linux. They must not have kept up to date with all security updates, or someone cracked a password. Hopefully offsite backups were made, to ensure data integrity." Although, due to... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 03:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

An article in the Miami Herald brings up an interesting question. When a person is intentionally diverting web traffic through use of domain names in order to protest a practice he finds wrong, where are the limits?

While it is clear that speech rights should always be paramount on the Internet, we have law that makes it a felony to divert unsuspecting children to pornographic websites. Would it work the same way if an unsuspecting person (who might be a child) who is attempting to send email to Carrie-Anne Moss, finds herself face to face with graphic photos of aborted fetuses?

What do the DNRC readers think? Please email us at admin at netpolicy dot com and let us know.

Posted by mikki at 10:50 AM | Permalink

Unfortunately, the strength of the trademark lobby, who feels that using this technical tool as an enforcement tool makes privacy issues unlikely to be addressed. We have long been told that speech rights, and rights to privacy (constitutional rights) must take a back seat to intellectual property "rights." How having a list of all domain name holders, including home addresses and telephone numbers, is an "intellectual property right" is beyond me, but there you have it

Today a letter was submitted to the President of ICANN, Paul Twomey, at the ICANN Carthage meeting, "asking him to ensure that strong privacy safeguards, based on internationally accepted standards, are established for the WHOIS database." Latest reports indicated that the draft letter had been signed by about 50 nonprofit groups and represented 21 countries on six continents. "Signers of the letter included the American Library Association, the U.S. Association for... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So why is Sitefinder so bad anyway? DNRC Board Member Karl Auerbach answers that question in the following article

I hope everyone has read David Isen's paper, the Rise of the Stupid Network.

That paper argues that telephone company networks became obsolete and inefficient dinosaurs, hostile to new innovation, because they put too much "intelligence" into the middle of the network.

The success of the internet is based in large part on the end-to-end principle, a principle that promotes designes in which the net is a mere conveyor of packets and that services are pushed outside of the net and into the end points.

It seems to me that Verisign's Sitefinder is an example of exactly the kind of end-to-end violation that gave rise to the inefficient and difficult-to-innovate telephone networks that David Isen complains of in his article. Verisign's Sitefinder puts a "service" (Verisign's term, not mine) into the middle of the net, thus creating an impediment to others who wish to innovate at the proper place - at the edges.

Posted by mikki at 10:01 PM | Permalink

After roughly 19 days of its introduction, VeriSign's Site Finder service was finally shutdown on October 4, 2003 following a "Formal Deadline" issued by ICANN (previously reported here). With the plug pulled, the Internet appears to be returning to its regular status ending a historic event that can be... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 08:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A well done article by Wendy Seltzer

ICANN demanded, at last, that the SiteFinder disservice be suspended, and VeriSign grudgingly complied. As EFF's Seth Schoen notes, VeriSign complains of not getting a hearing when they gave none to the Internet community before launching wildcards. Likewise, they fuss about notice to the community only after giving none to that same community impacted when wildcard resolution was launched.

SiteFinder should not be suspended because breaks hundreds of specific applications; it should be stopped because it breaks with the end-to-end architecture of the Internet to give one company monopolistic control of a resource in the center. It's not a contest between SiteFinder's search page and MSN's, but between giving VeriSign sole, centralized control of the error-handling for incorrect URLs and distributing that choice among users and applications at the edge of the network. The contest is rather SiteFinder versus (MSN or simple language-appropriate error message or WAP-provider's response or SiteFinder or ...), with that choice repeated across the variety of services that use DNS. Keeping SiteFinder out of the center leaves the greatest flexibility in the netowrk for those who want to add new protocols, services, and features on the ends.

ICANN has called for "further evaluation and study" of the impact of SiteFinder. The proper evaluation is for VeriSign to determine whether it will reimplement its advertiser-supported search as an option at the edge of the network or not at all.

Posted by mikki at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The registrar shuts down its controversial SiteFinder service, which redirected mistyped and misspelled URL requests to its own site, after ICANN orders a probe. [CNET News.com]

Posted by mikki at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A third lawsuit has been filed late Friday in a federal district court in California against VeriSign, Inc. over its controversial DNS wildcard redirection service known as SiteFinder. It was filed by the longtime Internet litigator Ira Rothken. In addition, while two other lawsuits have been filed by Go Daddy Software, Inc. and Popular Enterprises, LLC. in Arizona and Florida, this is the first lawsuit to seek class-action status. Here is an excerpt from the "Introduction" section... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 08:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Optima Technology Corporation has filed a lawsuit against Network Solutions alleging that the registrar gave away its domain name without its permission causing damage to its business. The suit alleges that Network Solutions transferred ownership of its domain name "optimatech.com" to a former Optima employee Michael DeCorte, which has allowed him to redirect Optima's revenue to his possession. Optima claims that DeCorte along with another former employee Raymond Martin, used a... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The company is facing a class-action lawsuit over its controversial "SiteFinder" search page. Critics say the redirect service interferes with other Net applications. [CNET News.com]

Posted by mikki at 05:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Karl Auerbach

Versign's SiteFinder appears to be based on the idea that anything on the internet that is not explicitly prohibited is thereby permissible.

For the moment let's put aside Verisign's monopoly position and the special responsibilities and limitations on behavior that derive from that position. And let's also put aside any patents that may be lurking out there that might cover SiteFinder.

If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that Versign's has correctly asserted that there are few bounds on what it can do on the internet, then where could Verisign go with something that I'll call SiteFinder II?

Continue reading "SiteFinder II?" »

Posted by mikki at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

DNRC Board Member Karl Auerbach gives his views on the Verisign DNS hijacking - ed.

As pretty much everyone now knows, Verisign recently used its monopoly registry position over .com and .net to impose a revenue-producing mechanism, which they call "SiteFinder", onto all users of the internet who are human and thus who make mistakes.

I think that it has now been pretty well established that Verisign's "SiteFinder"
has damaged the technical stability of the Internet, that it represents a major
abuse of Verisign's monopoly position, and that it amounts to a mass harvesting
of web user's browsing habits.

Continue reading "Will Network Solutions/Verisign Get Away With It Again?" »

Posted by mikki at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Verisign SiteFinder "typosquat"rhubarb continues.

John Berryhill makes the point on the INTA list that SiteFinder re-activates every domain name ever cancelled by UDRP or other decision.

The Registrars Consitutency of ICANN is considering moving to ask ICANN to ask Verisign to suspend the service.

The domain name VERISGIN.COM is for sale.

A search engine provider, Netster, has sued Verisign over the service.

The point has been made that the .MUSEUM TLD apparently utlizes the 'wildcard' technique utilized by SiteFinder and that ICANN had approved the technique.

My IT guy says "It's as if Avis modified its GPS so everytime you entered a wrong address, it gave you directions to a Sears store."

No comment from ICANN as of yet. SiteFinder returns this for www.whereisicann.com.

Posted by mikki at 01:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Popular Enterprises LLC, the parent company of Netster.com, has filed a $100 million dollar lawsuit against VeriSign, Inc. The Complaint alleges antitrust violations, unfair competition and violations of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act based upon VeriSign's release of the Site Finder product. The suit requests injunctive relief to prevent VeriSign from operating Sitefinder, and to otherwise cease what Popular Enterprises believes to be its monopolistic practices. [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is openly admitted , in the same Implementation PDF file, that all accesses to the Site Finder service are monitored and archived. A further worry for users is the privacy policy and terms of service posted on the Site Finder service. Not only does the simple act of mistyping a URL implicitly cause you, the end user, to accept VeriSign's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy without the chance to review and accept or decline either, but critical information as described above is not... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

VeriSign's Site Finder service apparently breaks some ISPs' spam filters, so the makers of a popular DNS package are developing a patch to bypass it. By Leander Kahney. [Wired News]

Posted by mikki at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We Internet users, who either own domain names or have an interest in the domain name system, wish to object to the VeriSign's Site Finder system. We believe that the system: 1) Breaks technical standards, by rewriting the expected error codes to instead point to VeriSign's pay-per-click web directory, and threatens the security and stability of the Internet; 2) Breaks technical standards affecting email services, and other Internet systems... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

A harmful, highly unilateral and capricious action. Tons of software out there depended on the ability to tell the difference between a domain name which exists and does not. They use that to give a meaningful, locally defined error to the user, or to identify if an E-mail address will work or not before sending the mail. Many used it as a way to tag spam (which came from domains that did not exist). It is the local software that best knows how to deal with the error. [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This CNET article features our own Karl Auerbach.

Criticism is growing over the company's surprise decision to take control of all unassigned .com and .net domain names, a move that's wreaking havoc on some filtering tools. [CNET News.com]

Posted by mikki at 09:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Internet Architecture Board has roundly condemned the Verisign action to hijack the Domain Name System. Here is a short excerpt:

The IAB feels that the system VeriSign had deployed for .com and .net contains significant DNS protocol errors, risks the further development of secure DNS, and confuses the resolution mechanisms of the DNS with application-based search systems. The IAB understands the efforts that VeriSign has made to limit the applicability of this system to queries which would normally not correspond to registered domains, and it recognizes the importance of the distribution of IDN-capable systems to end users. While the IAB agrees with VeriSign that rapid adoption of IDN-capable systems is desirable, the IAB feels that the very limited gain in distribution cannot balance the shortcomings of this deployment strategy.

Full information available Right Here

Posted by mikki at 08:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday, September 15, 2003, Verisign hijacked the Domain Name System by essentially making a sales tool out of every combination of letters or numbers that is NOT currently registered in the .com or .net heirarchies. Essentially, they are the world's largest "typosquatters."

This hijacking also affects email, or any other service that formerly used "domain not found" messages to process information. For example, if your anti spam software was set to reject any bogus domain names, it will no longer work, and all of that spam will now get through as a "valid" domain. Further, any mistyped email address will divert the mail to Verisign. What they currently do with it is send an error, but in future, they could send you yet more ads for Verisign services.

So how did Verisign get the power to do this? They run the master DNS servers for .com and .net. We have yet to hear from ICANN on this important issue.

Posted by mikki at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

CDT has written to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property urging it to consider the privacy concerns raised by the "Whois" database of personal contact information for domain name registrants. At the Subcommittee's hearing Thursday, witnesses called for new measures to force accuracy in the database. CDT has argued for some time that privacy protections can be added to Whois without compromising its valuable uses. September 4, 2003 [Center for Democracy and Technology]

Posted by mikki at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As if the "Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" and the UDRP weren't enough, now they are using the DMCA in order to chill speech by preventing anyone from FINDING it. And who is doing this? Surprize! It's Kazaa, itself a target of overzealous copyright infringement lawyers.

The cease and desist letter is being published on the Chilling Effects website at the link. It demands that Google suspend showing the following domains on their search engine:

Continue reading "Use of the DMCA against Domain Name Holders" »

Posted by mikki at 09:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

6th Circuit decision upholding an award of punitive damages under ACPA against an individual who registered the name FORDWORLD.COM and attempted to sell it to Ford Motors. The case provides stautory construction as to how to apply ACPA to domain names registered prior to the enacment date of ACPA (November 1, 1999). Also, while courts may sometimes apply analogous state statute of limitation to federal actions, there is no statute of limitations applied to Lanham Act actions.

Aside: FORD is up there with DELTA and UNITED in the list of well-known marks that are not exclusive. This fact is usually deployed in the domain name debate in the context: "how do we know that the registrant of FORDxxxxx.COM targeted Ford Motors and not Ford Models, for example. Well, in this case, the registrant sent an email to the CEO of Ford offering to sell the name.

Ford Motor Company v. Peter Catalanotte, No. 00-75260, (6th Cir. August 28, 2003).

Posted by mikki at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've been writing about the intrinsic problem with the use of the DNS as both a technical mechanism and as a source of unambiguous meaning and authority. The problems are much worse than most of the posters seem to note. The current approach assures that the Internet will unravel and worse, that URLs become perversely reused. The commercial terms of service associated with the use of ".com" names exacerbates the problem by imposing arbitrary social policies into the plumbing of... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Al Bode is typical of the many small, individual domain name holders throughout the United States and the world. He is a high school teacher of the Spanish language, not a techie, and he registered the domain IOWAWLA.ORG to provide an online presence for the Iowa World Language Association, a professional association for foreign-language educators in the US State of Iowa, of which he is a member. This domain could in no way... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 09:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[ICANNWatch]

Posted by mikki at 03:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Threatened with the possibility of legal maneuvering, parody site DontBuyMusic shuts down. Although it would probably win in court, the website decides it just can't afford to be right. By Danit Lidor. [Wired News]

Posted by mikki at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

FROM Barcelona.com

Press release
The Barcelona City Council has to hand back the domain name Barcelona.com
After 3 years of protracted, convoluted and insidious legal argument, the Barcelona Council has to accept they have no rights to use the domain Barcelona.com, as per U.S. Court of Appeals order of June 2nd, 2003.
All City Council arguments regarding trademark rights, bad faith use of the domain and cybersquatting have been fully denied and revoked by the Court.
On August 16th , 2003, the domain has been transferred back to its original registrant, Barcelona.com, Inc.

Continue reading "Barcelona Must Give Back Barcelona.com" »

Posted by mikki at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via ICANN.blog, an excerpt from Register.com's SEC filing indicating that there doesn't appear to be a launch date for the new .PRO top level domain name.

Previous misinformation on .PRO's sunrise period that I unwitingly circulated here.

Posted by mikki at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's Worse Than WIPO? (Hint - they're doing .kids.us) [ICANNWatch]

Posted by mikki at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From a new article on CNet, which never read a press release it wasn't willing to turn into an article: "The names go online in a few weeks, RegistryPro said." [icann.Blog]

Posted by mikki at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the second part of a 2-part series article arguing that the decentralization of the Internet will allow the DNS to recede to its earlier, uncontroversial role, before all the lawsuits and screaming matches at ICANN board meetings. To read the first part click here.

By Francis Hwang
Another source of pressure on the DNS was the system's shifting role from one that was primarily mnemonic to one that... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the first part of a 2-part series article arguing that the decentralization of the Internet will allow the DNS to recede to its earlier, uncontroversial role, before all the lawsuits and screaming matches at ICANN board meetings.

By Francis Hwang
Is it just me, or are we paying less attention to the Domain Name System than we used to? Seems like only a few years ago that the tech-culture world was attuned to every new angle in the ongoing struggle over the DNS' management.... [CircleID]

Posted by mikki at 02:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

These PDFs will make interesting reading for WLS watchers. As you'll see from a minute entry on the docket, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order was denied.

• Docket Sheet
• Complaint
• Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
• Declaration of Clint Page (Dotster)
• Declaration of Tim Ruiz (GoDaddy)
• Declaration of Martin Garthwaite (eNom)
• Declaration of Barrett Mersereau (Attorney)
• Declaration of Stuart Brown (Attorney)
• ICANN's Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
• Declaration of Dan Halloran (ICANN)
• Declaration of Benjamin Turner (Verisign)

Posted by mikki at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

[ICANNWatch]

Posted by mikki at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)