Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz 414

Posted by michael
from the hits-keep-coming dept.
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz

Comments Filter:
  • by JeanMarieLepen (575911) <cabinetlepen@frontnational.com> on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:49AM (#3864206) Homepage
    For now on, I'm only using IP addresses.
    • mmmmm, might bring a whole new dimension to goatse.cx links......anyways, in that case a new battle would start over the ip adresses that are easy to remember ;-) 123.123.123.123
    • I do that already.

      Turns out, if I advertise my site with my domain, and let it lapse, upon disconnection, nobody can get to me. However, if I do all my advertising by ip address (which never changes as long as I keep the same ISP), even though some people won't remember the ip addy, google is remarkably useful in finding the link as long as they know the title of the page, which is pretty simple to remember if you've ever been to the site.

      Yes, I realize its still bad practice, and eventually I'll get a domain again, but nobody has had any problems accessing my site with just the ip address, and for now, I see no hurry to jump back on the domain bandwagon again.

      -Restil
    • by 2g3-598hX (586789)
      Your comment highlights the absurdity of arguing over domain names in the age of bookmarks... I mean does anyone really care if it only takes 6 key strokes or 12 to go to a site?
    • by Cowculator (513725)
      Or we could just forget ICANN et. al. and start using OpenNIC [unrated.net] - wouldn't we all like to use the .geek TLD anyway?
  • by Lord_Slepnir (585350) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:53AM (#3864226) Journal
    ...That this is declared cybersquating, but when someone grabbed our robotics team website [moerobotics.org] there wasn't a thing done about it. We really need to clean this stuff up.
    • by fnj (64210)
      I suppose you don't have deep corporate pockets to sue the bejeezus out of those scum.

      That's what the difference is, of course.

      Corporate dictation - better than /different from/ government dictation - exactly HOW?
    • Honestly... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke (6130)
      It should be completely obvious at this point that the system of domain name dispute resolution is nothing more than a method for those with money to take domains from those with less money. Since it wouldn't be politically feasible to actually state this, a set of rules that appear to have some other purpose but which easily allow the true purpose are necessary. The actual content of those rules is irrelevant so long as it meets that criterion.

      So you really shouldn't be sick that something that isn't cybersquating is declared so, and that something that is cybersquating is not declared so. The term "cybersquatting" is irrelevant to the matter at hand, since it is nothing more than window dressing to the real matter -- who is declared to be economically more important. That's what should make you sick.
    • You are either a troll or a fool. The site you linked to is obviously one of those that these less than scrupulous registrars scoop up when the registration lapses and then tries to sell back to the owner.

      Either you never owned this name, or you owned it and let it lapse long enough to become available again. It doesn't really matter though, at the bottom of the page it states that the name is for sale. Have you contacted them to see how much they want for it? Can't be much since a Google for "moerobotics" returns that site and exactly one other hit.

      If you actually have a legitamate claim to the name you will have no problem yanking it away from those squatters based on the fact that tehy are obviously trying to sell it. Have you tried filing a dispute yet?

      BTW only the .org domain is taken. Not .com or .net. Is there some reason that you haven't just moved to moerobotics.com?
  • related 2600 story (Score:3, Informative)

    by bberg (516819) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:58AM (#3864267) Homepage
    Reminds me of the problems 2600 was having with ford. Ford didn't like them linking [fuckgeneralmotors.com] to thier site so they sued them. 2600 then found out that ford was sueing a bunch of people for stupid reasons, such as Jaguarenthusiastsclub.com, which is an animal site. You can read about it HERE [fordreallysucks.com]. The case recently got droped BTW.
    • Semi-related. Actually I thought Ford had something of a point with the FuckGeneralMotors.com site -- the fact is that many people would believe that, since the page went to Ford, that Ford had created such a tasteless domain. Sure, anybody with skillz could look up the domain's ownership, but most people wouldn't.

      Here's one for you: say I register a business called Racist Joke of the Day, and I forward all calls to your house. Does your reputation suffer the first time somebody calls and you answer? You bet it does -- you are likely forever to be, in cetain circles, the guy who ran that sick racist joke phone line. It's the sort of thing Donald Segretti would have done if he'd thought of it.

      That said, Ford should have called and asked 2600 to stop. I believe them when they say that they would have done so if asked. Putting lawyers in the water was heavy-handed at best.

  • by A_Non_Moose (413034) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @10:59AM (#3864275) Homepage Journal
    "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."

    Blatant sarcasm mode on:

    Free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN.

    BSM off.

    You expect professional behaviour from ICANN?
    You know what ICANN stands for don't you?

    Idiots Controlling A Nationwide Network.

    .
  • Funny how http://www.udrpinfo.com has its own cybersquatter(s)...

    http://www.udrp.info - complete with an automatic homepage-changer, and Gator!

    Buy it today!
  • by bahtama (252146) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:00AM (#3864286) Homepage
    Forget the twinkie defense or any other legal silliness, now we have the case of Molson Canada v. %2d%2d! I might cybersquat domain names just to get a court case named Big Company vs L33t Hax0r!
  • by adubey (82183) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:00AM (#3864288)
    [I] "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory"

    It's a good thing this guy didn't capitalize the "am" in "I am Canadian". For "I Am Canadian" is a trademark owned by Molson, and this poor chap would be sued for even using that sentence as a defence!

    • by No Such Agency (136681) <abmackay.gmail@com> on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:23AM (#3864415)
      Yes, it's sad that the name of my (and ~30 million other Canadians') great country has been made synonymous with what is in essence bottled piss. Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer", and "I Am American" was trumpeted as a commercial slogan in commercials for an inferior product!
      • it's sad that the name of my (and ~30 million other Canadians') great country has been made synonymous with what is in essence bottled piss

        Sad, but fair.

      • Yes, it's sad that the name of my (and ~30 million other Canadians') great country has been made synonymous with what is in essence bottled piss.

        At least you're not alone.
        • "Foster's. Australian for Piss."
        • Re: "I Am Canadian" (Score:3, Informative)

          by E-prospero (30242)
          "Foster's. Australian for Piss."

          Ok - time to clear this one up right now. Nobody in Australia - and I mean nobody - drinks Fosters. I can't even recall the last time I saw if available for sale in a liquor store, or on tap in a pub.

          Oh, sure, we have some very ordinary mass produced, mass marketed beers (Caslemaine XXXX, Swan Gold, Emu Export, and others). We also have some really good mass market beers (Redback would be a personal favourite; even Victoria Bitter isn't that bad). However, calling Fosters an Australian beer is so far from the truth it defies description. It's not brewed here, and it's not sold here - so how exactly is it Australian?

          Russ %-)
      • Imagine if Coors Lite was called "American Beer", and "I Am American" was trumpeted as a commercial slogan in commercials for an inferior product!

        I don't need to imagine it. I've lived overseas a number of times, and we Americans have the emberressment of "Budweiser, King of Beers" being promoted (successfully) in such places as the UK, Germany, and elsewhere as (a) the quitisential American beer (despite our numerous excellent brews (especially our Micro-brews), this is the bottled urin most of the world associates with American beer.

        What makes it even more emberrassing is that the label closely resembles the 'true' Budweiser of Czech fame, Budweiser Budvar, which in contrast to the American pisswater variety is one of the finest Pilsners on the planet. Only Corporate American arrogance could ever lead to such a situation, where a nasty, cheap knockoff of arguably one of the world's finest pilsners has the audacity to call itself the King of Beers and even try to displace that which it mimics so poorly in that product's native markets.

        Kind of sheds an interesting light on the psychology of the Corporate Moghuls fleecing our economy and driving into the ground these days (cf Enron, Xerox, Worldcom, and a whole bunch more coming soon to a courtroom near you).
        • Um, Budweiser in America was named that over a century ago. It wasn't some globalist marketing ploy. Busch started a brewery and wanted to emulate the budweiser he had in Czechoslovakia, so that's what he called it.

          Of course, it is pretty nasty. There are so many amazingly good American beers, it sucks that we're associated with the watery stuff that gets exported.
  • by rute_1 (190676) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:03AM (#3864304) Homepage
    It seems that microsoft.org is owned by a very large company (Microsoft) and isn't even being used. Could they be holding out to sell it to the highest bidder? Or, is this just another example of Cybersquatting?
    • It seems that microsoft.org is owned by a very large company (Microsoft) and isn't even being used. Could they be holding out to sell it to the highest bidder? Or, is this just another example of Cybersquatting?

      In one of my responses to the "What We Need" thread, I briefly outlined a name dispute resolution standard that would, in fact, consider Microsoft.org to be cybersquatting (unless it resolves to a real machine in some protocol, like ftp.microsoft.org, or http://microsoft.org/, etc).

      Since we're dealing with profoundly corrupt corporate shills in ICANN (including controlling intersts by the MPAA and RIAA ... what a coup d'etat that was) that make Enron, Xerox, and WorldCom look pristine in comparison, I doubt you'll ever see cybersquatting proceeding taken against a corporate interest such as Microsoft, at least not until we start using an alternative root authority such as Opennic instead.
  • by Little Brother (122447) <kg4wwn@qsl.net> on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:06AM (#3864316) Journal
    (AP)Today Slashdot Icon CowboyNeil, issued a warning to worldwide corperations. "If you use the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure to steal somebody's domain name, me and my posse [the slashdot community] will DoS your website." The announcement was made after the example setting cannadian.biz and Unix.org rustlers were "slashdotted" out of existance. When asked if he was taking the wild-west theme of "Cowboy" a bit far, Neil answered "yessiree partner!"

    Disclaimer: Duh! this never happened, CowyboyNeil never said that, you beleived me? What a shmuck!

  • Jurisdiction? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DesScorp (410532) <DesScorp&Gmail,com> on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:08AM (#3864328) Homepage Journal
    Out of curiosity, what is the process involved in appealing these disputes? I see that some have taken ICANN to court, but doesn't ICANN have international authority in assigning these names? If I was a citizen of, oh, say Egypt, how much authority would Egyptian courts have over ICANN? Ultimately, what legal recourse does one really have when getting an unfavorable ruling from this body?
  • not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tps12 (105590) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:09AM (#3864335) Homepage Journal
    Well, I was all set to rant and rave about how evil the WIPO and ICANN['t] and everyone else is. But after reading all of the links above (be honest: did you?), I have to say I'm reconsidering my stance.

    I don't know if many of you remember the cybersquatting "name rush," so let me provide some background. Basically, when the web started exploding, there was a small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that just a few would bring in a bunch of money when the trademarked domain name was sold back to its rightful owner.

    Needless to say, these greedy bastards were ruining it for the rest of us. A few bright spots (Guy Kawasaki's holding mcdonalds.com hostage in exchange for donations to public schools) didn't make up for what was largely the profitting of a few at the expense at anyone else.

    The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy. And if those rules were to disappear, or cease to be enforced, then we would be plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. These rulings seem terrible to us now, but if we want to save the 'Net, we need to be firm in our application of the rules. Those found in violation need to be held responsible for their actions, or we will find ourselves back in the web of 1996.
    • "plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. "

      As opposed to the corportate-sponsored hell we're in now?!

      Anarchy is fine for domain names. Domain names should be first come first serve, with the option to sell for what the market will bear.
    • Re:not so crazy? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doomdark (136619) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @12:14PM (#3864782) Homepage Journal
      Small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that...

      The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy

      [continuing story, alternative ending]
      But that was then, few years ago. Since then the idea of profitable cyber-squatting has been proven to be Urban Legend (see earlier Slashdot story about people not renewing squatted dns domains), and the famous Search engine [google.com] has pretty much proven to nay-sayers that the idea of using DNS-domains for blind searches is not a nature of law. [that is, although your first guess, "www.company.com" may succeed, if not, use Google and you'll find the company]. Plus the idea that fools just flock to "www.american.com", making that domain name valuable is incredibly naive. Ever heard of portals? (which, themselves, are not all that valuable either, but I digress)

      Btw, I don't think I'm the only one who's curious if it would be all that bad if we found ourselves back in the web of 1996?

  • What we need (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FreeUser (11483) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:12AM (#3864358)
    What we need is to dump ICANN. However, it isn't feasable to do this in one fell swoop, at least not yet.

    So, instead, we need DNS resolution in our libraries (glibc, etc.) and our internet applications (browsers, ftp & ssh clients, etc.) that include the concept of multiple root authorities, with easilly settable defaults.

    Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/

    Obviously, old nomenclature would remain in place, using the system default for root authority (presumably Opennic and not ICANN).

    It is only this approach, that will default to freedom but allow those of us who need to access ICANN-managed sites (most of the web today) to cross the line at will, that will enable us to free ourselves from ICANN's grip while still being able to make sensible use of the web.

    Whether the alternative becomes Opennic, or some new entity ('freenic' anyone?) it needs to be constructed with a solid, equitable constitution that preserves freedom of speech above everything else, and does not favor large corporate or government interests over the rights of individuals, with an open, public, and fair judicial process for resolving name disputes. Ideally it would also include a .tm domain for trademarked names, to which trademark disputes would be confined (ie. anyone can register mtv.com, but only the owner of the MTV trademark can register mtv.tm).
    • Re:What we need (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BlueGecko (109058)
      Ditto. However, I hate to bring this up, but the real key is not going to be supporting this in Linux, but in making Mac OS X and Windows support it. Given that ICANN is going to be much more friendly to Microsoft than, say, the GNU Directory, I'm not sure that it's going to be easy either to convince them to support this or even to make it realtively easy to be added by a third party unless you figure out some way to convince businesses that it's in their best interest to have such a scheme. Further, you're still going to run into problems with copyright, even if it's not run by such an insane agency but instead decided on a per-case basis by the courts. Instead of simply complaining to ICANN that jaguarenthusiastsclub.com violates the Jaguar trademark, you'll get complains to ICANN, GNU Directory, Free Directory, Apple .Mac directory, and so forth, and if those complaints aren't resolved, you'll simply have a whole spate of lawsuits. Unless at least these two problems can be resolved in some relatively simple way, I think we still need yet another solution.
      • Blockquoth the poster:
        Further, you're still going to run into problems with copyright, even if it's not run by such an insane agency but instead decided on a per-case basis by the courts.
        Well, first of all, the issue is not copyright; it's trademark. Second, it's not clear that domain names should ever have been considered part of trademark law at all. They straddle the fence between address and advertisement. In a corporate-focused world, of course, people assumed the "advertisement" bit. But really they're just an abstraction layer of addresses.
    • Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/

      A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com" [whitehouse.com], and you want them to have to specify yet another domain on top of that? Why not just force them to memorize the IP addresses of their favorite sites while you're at it... Having multiple "xxxx.org" sites would only be more confusing, not less. Besides, improvements in search engine technology (ie. Google) have made control of xxxx.net/org/com somewhat less important, which is not to say that you could run unix.org from a Geoshitties site or anything...
      • In a word, YES (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FreeUser (11483)
        A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com"

        Yes.

        It is absurd for us to hold ourselves to the least common denominator. A degree of literacy is required to make use of the internet and the web. Claiming otherwise, or even claiming that pandering to illiteracy would be a good thing, is akin to arguing for the replacement of text in all the books in all our libraries with color pictures because the "reading-impaired" can't understand all those big words.

        The sooner we divest ourselves of these sorts of idiotic fallacies and begin educating people so that they can make sensible use of technology, the sooner people will begin to have a positive, useful computing experience (rather than the constant frustration most people are confronted with today).

        Note that this doesn't mean everyone needs to understand what

        find / -type f -exec grep blah {} /dev/null \;

        means, nor does it mean that so-called "user friendly" interfaces are a bad thing (when properly implimented to facilitate knowledge and understanding, not obscure it) but basic concepts such as IP addresses, domain names, registrars, root authorities, filesystems, network connections, system memory, system storage, are something anyone wishing to use a computer should be required and expected to understand.

        A modern computer connected to the internet has a lot more in common with a library than it does a toaster, and it is time we started treating it as such.
      • A lot of (heavily tech impaired) users have trouble understanding that there are TLD's besides ".com"

        How do these people manage to use a telephone? Telephone numbering is hierachical, as are postal addresses.
    • Re:What we need (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dun0s (213915)
      "A trade mark is any sign which can distinguish the goods and services of one trader from those of another. A sign includes, for example, words, logos, pictures, or a combination of these." - http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/definition.htm - "distinctive for the goods/services for which registration is sought".

      Therefore MegaSoft can be used by both a company selling rather limp plastic and also a company selling computer software. Not only that but you could have a company in France called MegaSoft selling computer software and a totally different company in Japan also called MegaSoft selling computer software. There are exceptions, under UK law, for example you couldn't register Pepsi if you are a carpet salesman because Pepsi is already, in the eyes of the public, associated with a specific product.

      I guess that a solution would be to have a .tm top level and then have specialisation under that for specific countries, and then within a country if someone already had your name registered for a different product or service then tough luck!

      Microsoft would have microsoft.*.tm because they are pretty much globally known, where * is any country code.

      boots.uk.tm because, as far as i know, everyone in the uk will associate boots with the chemist company but i don't think they have much of a global presence.

      and so on.

      Any other solutions?
    • Re:What we need (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Papineau (527159)
      The problem is, more than one entity can detain the same trademark in different juridictions, or even in the same juridiction if the markets are sufficiently different. Remember that small library called Amazon (sorry, don't recall in which state)? They were established before amazon.com, and tried to get the amazon.com domain, but obviously amazon.com is still the one we know.

      So who do you give (or rather, sell) mtv.tm to? The MTV from the US, the MTV from Italy, or the MTV from Brazil? A generic homepage with a link to each and every such trademark registered, along with a small description of the company (location, market)? Actually, that's an idea. But then how do you order the links? More money gets you on top?

      Maybe you remember a few years back, altavista.com wasn't the correct link for the search engine of the same name. The company operating altavista.com had a link on the top saying "The AltaVista search engine can be found here". After that they must have sold the domain, because altavista.com was the correct link for a couple years.
      • The problem is, more than one entity can detain the same trademark in different juridictions, or even in the same juridiction if the markets are sufficiently different.

        The solution is relativley trivial.

        You have a trademark on textiles, in Illinois, for SweatShopSweats, but no national (or international) trademark? Fine, you get:

        sweatshopsweats.textile.il.us.tm

        That is the only domain name you are legally entitled to have. Any other domain names you get, such as sweatshopsweats.com, etc. are yours if you get 'em first, but you have no legal right to the name. Ditto with, say 'sweatshopsweats.tm' ... as a .tm domain, you can fight that out in court with sweatshopsweats.com of New York or New Delhi, just as you would any other trademark clash in the real world.

        You agree to this, in your contract, when you register your domain name with 'somefreenic' TLD authority.

        Let the .tm domain be the sole domain for such festering nonsense. Everything else is on a 'first come, first serve' basis, (with a reasonable anti-squatting procedure in place ... i.e. if you've owned a domain name for X time, but not made use of it, you become a candidate for dispute resolution proceedings if anyone else wants it).

        Trademark disputes should be completely removed from every non-.tm domain space, period, for the very reasons you cite (among others).
      • So who do you give (or rather, sell) mtv.tm to? The MTV from the US, the MTV from Italy, or the MTV from Brazil?

        The MTV in Turkmenistan [www.nic.tm], obviously.
      • Yes. That's what bookmarks and URL's are for.

        Most users never understand what the parts of a URL mean anyway, so a little more garbage at the beginning of one won't even be noticed. But how do you allocate the names for the authorities? If you have lots of naming authorities, then you need to allow those names to be allocated. So OpenNIC and OpenNick and ONic don't get into arguments. And so that one company isn't allowed to just claim every name that has nic or NIC or Nic or ... in it. (This doesnt' seem to be a "hard problem". Just one that needs to be addressed at the start. I would go for the one company, one name. If a company owning one name buys a company owning another name, it must relinquish one of them. If two companies each have more than 50% of their stock owned by another company, one of the names must be relinquished. If this isn't done within 90 days, both names will be dropped. etc.) You can be a bit hard-ssd about this, because there really isn't any call for there to be a huge number of naming authorities.

        Also, I would propose a resolution process where if the URL isn't found in the specified nameing authority, a sequence of secondary authorities would be checked.

        Question: What is the maximum number of naming authorities that the proposed protocol would allow? Are we talking about 50, about 50,000, or about 50,000,000? The design would need to be different.
        (Yes, I know that the specs aren't that defined yet. But I feel the question needs to be asked before the design gets well underway.)
    • Ideally it would also include a .tm domain for trademarked names, to which trademark disputes would be confined

      You realize ".tm" would only be meaningful to people who use the English word "Trademark" don't you? If we're really trying for a valid, international solution, it won't depend on abbreviations of English legal terms.

      (Yes, English is [currently] the defacto language of the internet. One argument at a time, please.)
      • You realize ".tm" would only be meaningful to people who use the English word "Trademark" don't you? If we're really trying for a valid, international solution, it won't depend on abbreviations of English legal terms.

        Unless you would like to push for Esperanto as the Official Language of the Internet (I would support you in this argument, even though it would mean I'd have to learn Esperanto from scratch), I think you are going to have to concede, and live with the fact, that English is the defacto language of the internet, and that for the domain system to work at all we have to accept that, to some degree.

        Thus, .tm would be the best approach.

        However, it isn't as simple as that, because, with more than one root authority to choose from, China could, for example, have //china//domain.tlds and reserve a TLD for chinese trademarks that ends in some chinese character(s) I can't type here. Ditto for any other language purists out there.

        As long as Trademark nonsense is reserved for .tm style domains, and kept out of the mainstream domains the rest of us use, I really couldn't care less if there is one, or a 100, such little domains, or what language the TLD characters are taken from.
    • Re:What we need (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheTomcat (53158) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @12:11PM (#3864764) Homepage
      Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/

      Aside from the fact that this would fundamentally break nearly every application that already does DNS through the definitive/de facto root servers (and has for the past 25+ years), I still can't see this working.

      Think of this: your long distance carrier is MCI [(333)333-3333]. You want to call your brother, who happens to be on Sprint [(444)444-4444]. Imagine having to call the MIC->Sprint Gateway, before calling him? Or having to dial the "Sprint Prefix" (//freenic). If you forget to do that, you'd get MCI's (444)444-4444 instead of Sprint's (444)444-4444 (which is what you REALLY want).

      Not to mention, a third root system catching on, and having to purchase many instances of the same domains within many roots.

      OR a resolution system for the various prefixes (how would your machine figure out which root servers to use for the various prefixes?)

      These analogies aren't perfect, of course, but I can see how multi-roots would get very annoying and cause even MORE problems.

      S
  • by drew_kime (303965) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:19AM (#3864393) Homepage Journal

    The complainant argues that the domain name is indistinguishable from their trademark. Respondent asserts that the trademark has become diluted to a generic, and is therefore not enforcable. According to the ruling:

    The United States registrations are prima facie evidence of the validity of the trademarks. ... The UDRP Policy and Rules are not intended as a forum to decide on loss of the validity of a trademark registration for loss of distinctiveness. There is no opportunity for a Complainant to respond to such an allegation. ... The above conclusion is of course of no precedential value should the Respondent wish to attack the validity of the trademark UNIX in another proceeding.

    Basically WIPO is saying that you can not defend a domain name by asserting that a trademark has become a generic. If you wish to challenge a trademark, you must do it in the jurisdiction where the trademark originates. As long as the trademark is considered valid in its original jurisdiction, it is accepted as valid in WIPO proceedings.

    • Why the hell should it matter if the domain name is trademarked? Every letter of the alphabet is a registered trademark -- are those invalid in domain names? If the unix.org page says at the bottom "UNIX is a trademark of the Open Group (or whoever owns it today), who are not affliated with this site." that *ought* to be totally sufficient, in a sane world.
  • by saintm (142527) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:21AM (#3864410)
    I thought I'd take a look at unix.org to see what their take on the decision would be.

    I was a might suprised to find it blocked by the wonderful corporate content filter.

    Checking the URL checker [n2h2.com] I got the following response:

    URL Checker

    Thank you for your submission. Below please find a listing of the category (ies) in which your submitted URL appears. For a detailed description of each category, visit our filtering categories section.

    The Site: www.unix.org
    is categorized by N2H2 as:
    Pornography

    Should you still wish to inquire about the URL in question after checking with your System Administrator, please submit your request to N2H2's Review Editors for further analysis.

  • by Grape Shasta (176655) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:27AM (#3864445) Journal
    Other domain names in arbitration:

    music.com - RIAA says they have the rights to this, since they "own music"

    switch.com - Apple claims they deserve it because of their oh-so-clever ad campaign. But Cisco says it belongs to them, because they make switches, and can afford the most lawyers.

    fordreallysucks.com - Now Chevy is claiming rights to this one, as it is a fundamental part of their corporate philosophy.

    bendoverandtakeit.com - Microsoft is pursuing this one, using an argument similar to Chevy's.
  • Beer? (Score:3, Funny)

    by checkyoulater (246565) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:29AM (#3864455) Journal
    I almost took this poor dude's side, until I read an absolutely preposterous remark.

    Being Canadian isn't just about drinking beer...

    As long as I can remember, being a Canadian has been about drinking beer. Good beer, too. Canadian beer. Besides, Canadian.biz is kind of like saying Cuba.biz. Nobody really cares.
  • by Ezubaric (464724) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:34AM (#3864488) Homepage
    The word "Canadian" is, unquestionably, generic. "Canadian" is a word whose usage is far, far more broad than the context of beer. A Google.com search for "canadian -beer" yields almost 4 million results!

    Yeah, and "stupid -bush" turns up about the same number. That doesn't mean the words don't have a deep and meaningful connection.
  • According to some whois queries that I just ran you can register such high quality domain names as fuckicann.[com/net/org], fuckwipo.[com/net/org] and fucknsi.[net/org].

    As a side, several years ago when NSI was pounding the company that I worked for in the butt hard core because they had a problem in their root servers, I proceeded to register fucknsi.org while on hold with them. Their tech support didn't believe that I could have a domain when I said my email contact was everyone.should@fucknsi.org.

    Of course, you're probably just wasting your $10.
  • The comment from John Gilmore is (in conclusion) "Now tell me again that free speech guarantees should not be part of the incorporation charter of ICANN."

    Hard to argue against that. Until, that is, you remember that John's definition of freedom of speech extends to running an open mail relay [slashdot.org] that he knows is being used by spammers. The tacitly admitted reason is that securing it might inconvenience his friends (to the extend that they'd have to remember a password), but the touted reason is that it's a freedom of speech issue. Sure, whatever.

    John Gilmore doesn't necessarily represent my ideas about what constitutes freedom of speech, and you really have to consider everything he says on a case by case basis to decide if it's an informed insight, or just blind kneejerk rhetoric. I believe he's right in this case, but let's be careful about just quoting him as though he's the authority on everything related to net issues.

  • Uh (Score:3, Informative)

    by GigsVT (208848) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:58AM (#3864668) Journal
    Did anyone bother to even check the wayback machine before jumping to conclusions? (You see it's a game, where you jump to conclusions, nevermind)

    Link [archive.org]

    Apparently they had some cheesy links up, and nothing up since 1998.

    Guess what, they WERE squatters./B>

    Go see the archive for yourself. If that isn't a squatted domain, I don't know what is.
    • Re:Uh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by juuri (7678)
      The wayback machine is often inaccurate. I was the original holder of unix.org (may 95) and had it for a couple of years before I let it lapse. When I had the domain was running with a set of links to various unix resources and included some great one-off qoutes by people like jkh. You will notice that none of these pages appear in the way back machine.

      Then again I also helped contribute to something very evil as I had a link to an online survey which paid me. The results of that survey helped form one of the evil internet marketing companies.
  • by thales (32660) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @11:59AM (#3864683) Homepage Journal
    Let's see, Unix.org sets up a resource that HELPS the Open Group members' customers at ZERO cost to them, and they stomp on them?

    That's real fucking smart of them, though it's typical of a this called standards group that acts more like the Unix Cartel than an "Open" group.

    I Agree that they own the Unix trademark, but it would have been a lot smarter move to grant a license to unix.org to use the trademark instead of taking the domain.

    Keep it up Open Group. You already destroyed the value of CDE and Motif with licensing terms that caused KDE and Gnome to be developed. I guess you won't be happy until you wipe out any value left in the Unix trademark.

  • Read the decision closely and search for the word "faith." Read and understand why the panelist decided the website was registered in bad faith. He said the website included links to "commercial" sites like sendmail.org (!) and thus was registered in bad faith! Amazing.

  • This would make a little more sense if Molson owned any of the other canadian.xxx domains. But they don't. What makes canadian.biz different from canadian.com or canadian.net or canadian.org and on and on and on. Not that any of these domain owners are in the wrong either, but what did ICANN use as their logic?
  • Damn Right! (Score:3, Funny)

    by curunir (98273) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @12:27PM (#3864866) Homepage Journal
    The word "Canadian" is, unquestionably, generic. "Canadian" is a word whose usage is far, far more broad than the context of beer.

    Yeah...It's way more broad. It also includes Hockey.
  • The canadian.biz complaint [arbforum.com] is an interesting read. Molson makes three points in their reasons why the domain should be transfered to them.

    1) We trademarked the name canadian. - that's valid although how they got away with it is another question.

    2) We are a really big company - they give all sorts of stats on how big they are. Great! Not really relevant though.

    3) The registrant isn't real - apparently the registrant name showed up as "%2d%2d" and that is obviously not a real person. They did however do a search for %2d%2d and found no such person. Dr. Black told the panel that the registrar told him they would fix that.

    Based on these overwhelming points, ICANN agreed to give the domain to Molson. Makes perfect sense. Doesn't it?
  • Actually, I think we should throw the entire DNS into the toilet & flush.

    It was a stop-gap, first effort and like James Brooks said, "Plan to throw the first one away, you will anyway."

    It was based on cognitive structures that have proved unable of scaling. All the hacks since (DynIP, spoofing, Spam, DDoS etc.) have all been based on weaknesses in the disambiguation mechanism.

    Your address might also become your personal form of address (on your personal/business card, ssn, access to encryption keys, business records [fuck Pasport,] medical records,) as opposed to a physical location and redundant and often dangerously inaccurate databases.
  • by werdna (39029) on Thursday July 11, 2002 @12:50PM (#3865012) Journal
    This is simple economics. A natural consequence of the brain-dead ICANN/NSI rules. It will not get better, and life will get considerably worse, until the rules are changed to make bullshit like this impossible.

    Here's why.

    Since complainants select the arbitrator with whom they file their complaint, arbitration companies assemble panels that are wildly and notoriously pro-complainant. Any arbitration company not sporting a massivly pro-plaintiff win rate gets passed over (and makes less money in arb fees) than an arb co that does.

    Doh! So the company that provides the least fair and responsible results, so long as they are pro-petitioner, will do better than the other companies. There IS SIMPLY NO ECONOMIC INCENTIVE to provide balanced and fair adjudication.

Some people have a great ambition: to build something that will last, at least until they've finished building it.

Working...