North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
- From: William Allen Simpson
- Date: Wed Mar 07 17:13:53 2001
-----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
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
"... Respondent planned to obtain some kind of payment from
Complainant -- naturally quite in excess of "out-of-pocket costs"
"... that Complainant "invest" in Respondentís Business Plan to
develop the Domain Name, through acquiring twenty per cent of the
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
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>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----