Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh?
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Too bad ICANN has been such a complete and utter failure that an organization felt it necessary to start such a business, huh?
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently reverse-hijack domains and the selection of a handful of lackluster TLDs from a pool of applicants paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a completely arbitrary and capricious process, perhaps you could point to some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently reverse-hijack domains
Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned. Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
and the selection of a handful of lackluster TLDs from a pool of applicants
Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new TLDs in a dozen years. More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?
paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go. Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian. Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a performance bond.
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
perhaps you could point to some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success. Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even consider collegial closed meetings more civilized! We've added some good people in the elections, and I have high hopes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOqVHh9m/qMj6R+sxAQGr8gQAgZC83rFcxOzQx13APCRlVmEXANHf/OMN rfiaAvZCW0Pq3mTt2/8roffizEZYQzN2cK/Y6pkyJj/9Le04t6FzFCbOdh8gdLjv E6XPu3AplDXbqNLZ38uN+A8lN9rnjhlkb7NuIvmGDF4zG6pj3YLrlhzEYQnxCyWW MIGSB9blde4= =QQ8G -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of William Allen Simpson Sent: March 6, 2001 3:26 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
perhaps you could point to some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
We've added some good people in the elections, and I have high hopes.
I apologize for bringing this whole thing on NANOG, but I do have some objections to your comments. Have you looked at the .org situation (with the new proposed VeriSign agreement and everything) lately? http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001 is full of angry .org domain owners who have been told nothing officially by ICANN except some vague segments of press releases and proposed agreements that many choose to interpret as indicating that their domains will be taken away because they don't match some "arbitrary and capricious" requirements, to use the words of the poster you're replying to. Whether this is ICANN's real intention or not remains to be seen, but that's what is being assumed for now. I don't have high hopes, unlike you; I fail to see how ICANN can totally ignore their own forum (except to post one vague little thing saying nothing a long time ago) filled with hundreds of angry people where all it would take is a simple "No, our new rules will only apply to new .org domains" to appease the masses. The public is participating, absolutely, but what I see it particupating in is a rant-fest of angry .org owners, not a valuable dialog with ICANN that could lead somewhere constructive. Please tell me how to put my hopes on an elevator or a plane, because currently they're rather low, and will remain that way until ICANN starts being a little more forthcoming. Vivien NOTE: I am speaking on my own behalf, not on behalf of the organization mentioned in my signature, for which I am a volunteer, even though dyndns.org is a .org, obviously, and non-profit. -- Vivien M. vivienm@dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/
Why does anyone care? just setup your dns servers to point *.(newnetstlds) to your own web site saying that they dont work. Christian
Why does anyone care?
just setup your dns servers to point *.(newnetstlds) to your own web site saying that they dont work.
Is that any better of an idea than using new.net in the first place? It probably would have worked, for some definition of "worked", had you not deliberately made it fail. That's dishonest, and if your users have any brains, they'll find friends for whom it does work, and will come complaining to you - and rightfully so.
Christian
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently reverse-hijack domains
Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Here's a few to get you started: barcelona.com dodgevipers.com bodacious-tatas.com corinthians.com crew.com kwasizabantu.com tonsil.com Also, you can see: http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm which is an analysis of the UDRP done by Dr. Milton Mueller.
Here, I will agree. My observation is that they chose lackluster TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new TLDs in a dozen years.
More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained. And that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?
paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go. Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
Except that those that paid 50k and were rejected have absolutely zero to show for the attempt.
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
The personal experience of being there. They completely winged it, and were fumbling around on stage for ways to decide which TLDs to choose. Try listening to the Real Audio broadcast sometime.
perhaps you could point to some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
The public had nothing to do with the selection of the TLDs in question, the only elected board members weren't seated until after the decisions had been made(convienent that.) Currently a study is being undertaken to see if an "At large membership"(the public) and the associated board seats are appropriate at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To be "on topic", the addition of new pseudo-TLDs by a well-funded pirate organization concerns me greatly. As several have noted, this is going to be a support nightmare. In short, the pirate new.net is trying to make money by taking it out of my pocket. The DNS is much more fragile than we like to admit. Security is not widely deployed. The most secure versions of BIND are having birthing pains. To combat this piracy, we need a signed root, and resolvers that won't accept the insecure version. === Somewhat "off topic", the stated rationale for these new pirate domains is that ICANN is moving too slowly. That's silly. The few TLDs that have been approved are not yet in operation. If it takes this much time for operational experience, then throwing more such domains in the mix isn't any "faster". As I stated earlier, I have a number of concerns with ICANN. I really believe in open participation, was a leader in the revolt at the IETF back in '91-'92, and have won several FOIA cases "pro se". I think we took the best step we could in electing a stellar representive for North America. After all, this is N.A. NOG.... I'm not sure how adding pirate domains improves ICANN sunshine. === Another stated rationale is that ICANN UDRP is "flawed". I'm not sure how adding pirate domains improves the UDRP. The pirate has publically stated that it will follow the UDRP. Several folks suggested examples of "reverse-hijacked" domain decisions. I've taken a bit of time to look at the most frequently cited. Here's two that are exemplar: - - - barcelona.com -- a UDRP decision by a WIPO panel. Seems to have been correctly decided. They lost on not one, not two, but three issues! Look at those dates. A race to the registrar, by mere days, clearly designed to prevent the city from using the .com domain. I'd have decided it on the final issue alone: they tried to extort money. Bad faith. Clear and convincing evidence. "... according to Respondent Business Plan, filed in these proceedings, it is obvious that the main and only purpose of such plan is to commercially exploit information about the city of Barcelona in Spain and its province, particularly, using the information prepared and provided by Complainant as part of its public service. "... Respondent planned to obtain some kind of payment from Complainant -- naturally quite in excess of "out-of-pocket costs" "... that Complainant "invest" in Respondents Business Plan to develop the Domain Name, through acquiring twenty per cent of the stock." Just the kind of behaviour that the UDRP was designed to fix. Barcelona should have gone after them with the US ACPA, to get financial penalties and costs. Pond scum.... - - - vw.net -- in US Federal Court by US citizens, who lost under the US "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA) of 1999. Upheld on appeal. It has nothing to do with ICANN, nor the UDRP. Mind you, these citizens lost before they even got a hearing: Summary Judgment. Why? Because VW was able to demonstrate "bad faith" on the part of the US citizens. Clearly, and conclusively. The idiots took vw.net with the expressed purpose of selling it "for a lot of money", based on the their OWN testimony! While I agree that VW is not an internet service provider, and does not qualify for .net as a manufacturer of automobiles, the Act gives them the disputed name as a PUNISHMENT for cybersquatters. VW can keep it, or throw it away. And I don't see any reason why VW could not set up a network service, much as the Automotive Network Exchange in the US, for the purpose of conducting business with their suppliers. Then, they qualify. === In short, there might be some bad UDRP or ACPA decisions out there. Arbirtrators and Judges are fallible. But, based on these "cause celebre", bad cases do not make a good argument for change. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOqauudm/qMj6R+sxAQH8uwP/SJtqcPjk3qxpPyys8UMjAMg9tSRAme4K iqWum5venSVW+W4Jq+w/oSMvxuWAD/bxnrlNOkb/lSF2avd7b/wn9HWKyYrAdFoA WD6L+hDESHQbnasgC4YqulUbX2F4l1PcbI270/w4IePRGUjb9a4h7tttigtQR5z8 IOJdXvt43js= =sott -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Another stated rationale is that ICANN UDRP is "flawed". I'm not sure how adding pirate domains improves the UDRP. The pirate has publically stated that it will follow the UDRP.
Several folks suggested examples of "reverse-hijacked" domain decisions. I've taken a bit of time to look at the most frequently cited. Here's two that are exemplar:
We really are wandering from operational content, but I simply couldn't pass this up because it contains so much bad information.
barcelona.com -- a UDRP decision by a WIPO panel.
Seems to have been correctly decided. They lost on not one, not two, but three issues!
Look at those dates. A race to the registrar, by mere days, clearly designed to prevent the city from using the .com domain.
What exactly are you talking about? The domain had been registered since 1996, and the site had been in operation since 1997. Please see the lawsuit that the owners filed against the City Council of Barcelona: http://www.domainbattles.com/lawsuit3.htm Notable excerpt: "For several years, <bcn.es> and <Barcelona.com> peacefully coexisted; in fact until May 2000, defendants website <bcn.es> provided a link to plaintiffs website <Barcelona.com>." I think that about ends any discussion of rather it is a case of attempted reverse-hijacking or not. Beyond that the kind folks at SWIPO went well beyond their mandate with this gem: "...However, such right of interest is and will be always subject to the lack of disputes with parties having better rights or more legitimate interests as in this case..." "Better rights? More legitimate interests?" Even the UDRP doesn't go that far.
I'd have decided it on the final issue alone
You'd have a great career at SWIPO.
Just the kind of behaviour that the UDRP was designed to fix.
Guess what? The original registrants still have posession and use of the domain. Of course the original registrant had to go to court in order to prevent the theft of their domain, a theft made possible by the UDRP and your friends at SWIPO. Previously, the would-be hijackers would have to go to court(which they would and will no doubt be laughed out of.) So the net result is that the original registrant has to incur a good deal of legal expenses that they otherwise wouldn't have had to as the hijackers wouldn't have a case in the U.S. and thus a suit would have been pointless. The UDRP was designed by WIPO, an organization dedicated to intellectual property interests, not to the interests of individuals and/or consumers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Patrick Greenwell wrote:
We really are wandering from operational content, but I simply couldn't pass this up because it contains so much bad information.
barcelona.com -- a UDRP decision by a WIPO panel.
Seems to have been correctly decided. They lost on not one, not two, but three issues!
Look at those dates. A race to the registrar, by mere days, clearly designed to prevent the city from using the .com domain.
What exactly are you talking about? The domain had been registered since 1996, and the site had been in operation since 1997.
Perhaps you missed the findings of fact: February 21, 1996: Barcelona.com March 5, 1996: 42 registrations by Barcelona City. One wonders, how did Ms. Concepcio Riera Llena know that the city was about to embark on trademark registrations and a network presence? Is this a city so unlike other bureaucracies that it was able to suddenly prepare 42 registrations in a week? One wonders, why did it take another year for the site to go into operation? Was it because Llena had no actual Internet expertise? In Spain, the City of Barcelona has trademarked barcelona.es, .com, .net, and .org. Excessive (in my view), but no surprise with the actions of Llena. Llena tried to evade that registration by transferring "ownership" from Spain to a shell company in the US (June 15, 2000), where she does not reside, and applying for trademark on barcelona.com in the US (not granted). The only defense mounted by Llena is essentially: I got it first, and have a property right, nyah, nyah, nyah. These squatters relied on Navigator appending .com when just the word (in this case, "barcelona") was typed. That's not a legitimate business interest. That's "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainants mark". 4(b)(iv). I see a very bad actor here!
Please see the lawsuit that the owners filed against the City Council of Barcelona:
You rely on a legal Complaint posted on the 'net, not even issued a file number? Where is the Answer? How did they assert jurisdiction over a foreign entity? What was the disposition of the case?
Just the kind of behaviour that the UDRP was designed to fix.
Guess what? The original registrants still have posession and use of the domain. Of course the original registrant had to go to court in order to prevent the theft of their domain, a theft made possible by the UDRP and your friends at SWIPO.
I'm not familiar with this organization. Do you have any remaining objectivity? Do you understand that UDRP can be superseded by a court order? Do you know what a "stay" means? Do you understand that under US law, because they tried to extort from the city, they have a strong likelihood of losing the domain as punishment for their bad actions? As I said, even had the ALJ not found misfeasance and malfeasance on several other issues, the extortion demand alone would have lost them their case under UDRP. Now, they have to content with ACPA, which is stronger on this issue. The reason we have the UDRP and ACPA is experience with these squatters got so bad that the legal system needed to deal with the crisis. The "property right" advocates gambled with our networks, and the legal establishment agreed with the Internet pioneers: there is no ownership right in the DNS. Established marks win. And that's my last post on this particular topic, which has gone far afield of the new.net domain pirates. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQCVAwUBOqeT+dm/qMj6R+sxAQHewAQAgaPeoj0ny6cVCy+SIqWgSm/Rm+RBU2y1 vlTSpYk4cLopL5CyDF/Fdvdx/7Kki4US6/uFjhwovCO4NNT1SFFjoeFplMZBFYOC 5Pu+1X5EgUg/jwQJ3v+KWOmgqE7q8uXLee37O/TLGapVZv0mOswQC1XRlto7W7Oq yYgICPVA6Z8= =w1Qf -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Look at those dates. A race to the registrar, by mere days, clearly designed to prevent the city from using the .com domain.
What exactly are you talking about? The domain had been registered since 1996, and the site had been in operation since 1997.
Perhaps you missed the findings of fact:
February 21, 1996: Barcelona.com
March 5, 1996: 42 registrations by Barcelona City.
One wonders, how did Ms. Concepcio Riera Llena know that the city was about to embark on trademark registrations and a network presence?
Someone registers a domain name prior to a city receiving trademark registrations, so they obviously are doing it with intent and knowledge that the city is applying for trademarks? Wow, you are really out there now. I too am done with this thread, as you are so far from reality it doesn't warrant further discussion with you.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:
===
Somewhat "off topic", the stated rationale for these new pirate domains is that ICANN is moving too slowly. That's silly.
The few TLDs that have been approved are not yet in operation. If it takes this much time for operational experience, then throwing more such domains in the mix isn't any "faster".
I'm not sure how adding pirate domains improves ICANN sunshine.
I think the idea is not to improve ICANN, but to give up on it entirely. "Well if they're not going to do it right, then we'll at least do it." It's a method that I myself have tried a couple times, with varying degrees of success. I think we're all at least a little disappointed with ICANN; new.net is just taking that disappointment to its logical extreme and ditching ICANN altogether. (Or as much as is feasible, anyway.)
===
Another stated rationale is that ICANN UDRP is "flawed". I'm not sure how adding pirate domains improves the UDRP. The pirate has publically stated that it will follow the UDRP.
This, I'm concerned about. While ICANN has made a couple decisions that I don't agree with, at least we can hope that those were mistakes, or that ICANN has reasons I don't know about. New.net, though, is a for-profit company, and the dine between buying a service and bribing someone for that same service gets very thin and wavery. Matthew Devney
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Any one involving a person's name. The basic principle that you have a right to use your name in trade (which simply means that no one can prevent a name from being used!) has been turned on its head. DS
I know a guy whose name happens to be the same as a popular British designer clothing line. For privacy purposes, I'll call him, and the designer, Joe Blow. He owns and uses joeblow.com, and the designer has a website at joeblow.co.uk. But now the designer has decided that they want joeblow.com, and are sending in the landsharks. If he can weather the legal storm, I think he'll win, because (a) it's him name and (b) he's actively using the domain. Have there been any cases of the original owner losing in a similar scenario? -C On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 07:48:39PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Any one involving a person's name. The basic principle that you have a right to use your name in trade (which simply means that no one can prevent a name from being used!) has been turned on its head.
DS
-- --------------------------- Christopher A. Woodfield rekoil@semihuman.com PGP Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xB887618B
At 03:26 PM 3/6/2001, you wrote:
Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions. Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
Quite a number listed on the mailing list for Domain-Policy; archives at http://lists.netsol.com/archives/domain-policy.html . Everything from decisions that failure to offer to sell the domain is proof of bad faith to decisions where offerring to sell is proof of bad faith; Cities are not entitled to domains with their names; etc. etc. Far too many to list here...
paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various other discussions) expected to be non-refundable. Pay as you go. Nobody else pays for your cost to operate. Very libertarian.
And fine, as far as it goes in theory. But the fee was considered fairly steep to begin with (since it's basically thrown away money) and the losers' money is being used to fund the winner's TLDs and other operations. Far from an option or performance bond, this appears to be a simple "We need money, so we're going to extort it from you" plan.
Apparently, you've never optioned property.... Or supplied a performance bond.
One doesn't pay the property's full price for the option nor lose the bond if they perform. This was high-stakes poker with a $50k ante. There *appear* to have been...improprieties...in the decision-making process, hence the outcry. If you lose fairly, well..suck it up. If, however, the deck appears to have been stacked...
completely arbitrary and capricious process,
Really? In the legal sense? What proof do you offer?
Recommend you join domain-policy@lists.netsol.com where we discuss these matters more fully. It's not really NANOG material (at this point, anyway). The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything
I'd ever expected. On that basis alone, it's a success.
You *MUST* be joking. Participation like becoming at At-Large member so that I could enjoy the benefits of membership...um, I mean, be allowed to vote one time for a member? Participation like people not being allowed to attend "public" meetings? Or not being allowed to speak even at the "public" meetings? Participation as in public comment on the Verisign deal?
Yes, I wish that things were moving faster. I wish that the fully envisioned board had been selected. I wish that there was more sunshine. But, I realise that not every citizen on the planet has the same adversarial bent in their civilization, and that some even consider collegial closed meetings more civilized!
More civilized? Perhaps. Contrary to democratic principles? Certainly. Really...you simply MUST join us on Domain-Policy to discuss this issue in more depth... Dean Robb www.PC-Easy-va.com On-site computer services Member, ICANN At Large
Patrick,
ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder. Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently reverse-hijack domains
From the Wired article: [New.Net CEO] Hernand said New.net will follow ICANN's dispute resolution policy. "The system is not perfect. Trademark issues are complicated, but we determined this is the best approach for now." Sounds like new.net will be using the same UDRP that ICANN is.
and the selection of a handful of lackluster TLDs from a pool of applicants paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a completely arbitrary and capricious process,
I don't think anyone would claim ICANN has done a good job in dealing with adding top level domains. It isn't clear to me that new.net's approach is any better (in fact, I figure it is significantly worse). As an aside, I believe new.net approached Nominum to provide services and we declined -- we are interested in helping to make the DNS infrastructure better, not helping it devolve into chaos.
perhaps you could point to some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
Like plumbing, you should only notice ICANN when it breaks. The fact that ICANN continues to exist despite the absolute insanity now associated with the DNS is a success. Rgds, -drc
participants (12)
-
Christian Nielsen -
Christopher A. Woodfield -
David R. Conrad -
David Schwartz -
Dean Robb -
mdevney＠teamsphere.com -
Mike Batchelor -
Patrick Greenwell -
Paul A Vixie -
Randy Bush -
Vivien M. -
William Allen Simpson