Karl Auerbach Speaks Out on ICANN 115
richard koman writes "Here's an interview I did with Karl Auerbach about ICANN in the aftermath of their eliminating public board members. 'October's distributed, denial-of-service attack against the domain name system--the most serious yet, in which seven of the thirteen DNS roots were cut off from the Internet--put a spotlight on ICANN, the nongovernmental corporation responsible for Internet addressing and DNS. The security of DNS is on ICANN's watch. Why is it so susceptible to attack, when the Internet as a whole is touted as being able to withstand nuclear Armageddon? It's religious dogma, says Karl Auerbach, a public representative to ICANN's board. There's no reason DNS shouldn't be decentralized, except that ICANN wants to maintain central control over this critical function. Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names.'" A Wired article suggests the five elected board members won't be stepping down on December 15 after all.
What would be expected from... (Score:1)
Re:What would be expected from... (Score:2)
Or as I like to say: The people in power are inevitably the wrong ones to have power.
Support alternatives! (Score:5, Interesting)
I should probably start pointing my OpenNIC domain at my server again.
Re:Support alternatives! (Score:1)
Re:Support alternatives! (Score:2)
Re:Support alternatives! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Support alternatives! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, if you DON'T have your DNS set up to deal with OpenNIC, the
In Other News... (Score:3, Funny)
naive (Score:4, Interesting)
There is a difference between a nuclear attack .. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a direct nuclear strike on the location of one of the DNS roots, the others are unscathed. You need a whole lot of nuke strikes to fully disable the DNS servers.
However, although 7 of the DNS roots were down during the DDoS, the fact remains that SIX WERE UNAFFECTED.
I.e. the system behaved the way it is supposed to behave, and proved that it is relissialnt after all.
I offer no comment oin the rest of the article.
nuclear attack? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is a difference between a nuclear attack (Score:1)
I doubt they're going to sit and hope it never happens again. I am sure more provisions are being thought of to handle another attack like that.
Re:There is a difference between a nuclear attack (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you knew the IP addresses so you could reach the servers you desired, and didn't have to use domain names, you can still reach the servers (in fact this is a useful way to get around some types of blocking.)
ICANN just converts the domain name to an IP address... And unfortunately, it's kinda difficult to have a non-central way to handle that (albeit, I have seen some interesting papers on this topic... discussion for another time.)
the Internet is built that if the base architecture is not one server dependent. (in other words, if one server isn't all that is connect two sections of the internet.) Then it will work, since no taking out of one server will disrupt the connections between the rest.
The only thing that fails if ICANN fails is the domain names. Which means that if you don't know the IP addresses to those sites that are important, then you can't do much.
I know Slashdot's IP... that's all that matters to me.
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:1)
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:1)
I wonder what my bandwidth would be like if the root nameservers went down. Could I expect superfast downloads on p2p networks (which generally would be unaffected)?
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:1)
A DNS failure would be a disaster to the economy. Because users would not be willing to do the manual DNS lookup, they would not complete online sales and they would not be able to access our other contact information like phone numbers to complete sales in a more traditional way. We (my company) would lose double digit percentages of our sales, and this would dramatically affect our earnings. AND--we're not even a 90's era dot com.
So, I apologize for being so paranoid, but I think that you are underestimating the problem that would result. Sure, the technical challenge is easy to get around, but not everyone is a Slashdot geek like us.
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then fire your "webmasters" for creating such a broken website.
Can they explain why EVERY single link includes the full URL of the he domain name to the IP address?
Have they never heard of relative addressing?
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Go to any named-based web hosting provider and try to get to any customer website by IP.
They only have ONE ip address for their machine. The only way the server knows which site to spit out is by, you guessed it, the domain.
The web isnt the only named based type of server out there either, it is just the most popular.
IP shortage isnt the reason ARIN incourages named-based over IP-based services.. its reliance on domains they are pushing.
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
But, I am guessing reasonably that it wouldn't be hard to get to those websites as well if you know the IP and the domain name. you just have to be able to get the server to think connecting via Domain, and not IP, even though the initial connection is via IP.
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
- Edit
/etc/hosts and add the name->ip
- Run your own dns server with the appropriate entries
Lots of obvious problems with this of course, but if you are really worried about the entire dns system getting taken down you should have all your vital ip addresses to hand.Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
I've been thinking of setting up my own personal private DNS server. Make things easier if my ISP's DNS servers went down.
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
Indeed. And plenty of places still maintain their own /etc/hosts file containing "important" machines and distribute it via NIS/YP to their client machines. If you're concerned that's one thing you could do. Go through your netscape history, or set your machine to log outgoing packets, and then lookup those hosts and add them to /etc/hosts. Of course, things with round-robin DNS or other multi-machine kludges might fail, but at least you'll still be able to read the news websites that will say "Missiles on their way to New York; film at 11."
Of course, that's not the issue here. The issue is that ICANT^HN sucks. But how do you force them to suck less? Make them a government organization? No. Make them a publicly traded corporation? Perhaps. Make them a U.N. organization? Maybe, but then they'd accomplish even less than they do now. What's the answer?
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
And exactly how would this be a bad thing?
Re:Here's the thing... (Score:2)
RTFAs (Score:3, Informative)
- he has spoken against ICAAN before. It's not like he's "finally" speaking out.
- his car was stopped by the police when he was younger, which made him decide to get a law degree so he would know his rights. He does not practice law, but he could if he wanted to.
ICANN Haiku! (Score:2)
Re:ICANN Haiku! (Score:2)
Internet denied
Domain names not found again
ICANN out to lunch
Craenor
Governmental Agency (Score:1)
Have you ever been to the California DOT?
You could spend 3 hours on hold because you have to call in changes, then wait 6 months for changes to perpetuate only to find out the minimum wage moron that answered the phone typed in your changes wrong.
Lil' Ol' ICANN (Score:2)
And those junkets aren't jet setting fun, they are work! In hotels!
What a sorry politician that guy is- he can't even come up w/half decent b.s.
.
Does it come as any surprise (Score:1)
Lord Acton had it dead on. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Kierthos
Re:Does it come as any surprise (Score:2)
not very breakable (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me ask you - did YOU notice problems with the net on the day of this attack? more than half of the root nameservers were down and the average internet user didn't even notice. Things kept working and the other root nameservers took the load. The DNS system explicitly is NOT susceptible to attack and I think that this attempt at DOS-ing it supports this.
The thing I don't understand is (Score:1, Interesting)
This may be a stupid question ... (Score:1, Insightful)
The Internet's as fragile as an egg (Score:3, Insightful)
This whole nuclear attack thing is crap. From the perspective of network connectivity, what's the difference between a nuclear detonation and a few well-placed backhoe accidents? (Yes, yes, I know, they're totally incomparable because of the catastrophic effects of a nuclear detonation, but I'm talking about the effects on the network, not on people and buildings.) How many times in the last ten years have we seen major routing issues to a metropolitan city or even a geographic region arise after a backhoe cut something it shouldn't have? Admittedly, recovery from a nuclear detonation would take much longer than recovery from a backhoe accident... And if, God forbid, most of the metropolitan cities in the U.S, Europe, and Asia are destroyed in nuclear Armageddon, then the Internet's going to suffer big-time.
If the media hadn't reported on the root server DDoS, then 99.999(9?)% of the Internet community wouldn't have even known that anything had happened. DNS caching and the redundant servers helped things continue working despite the DDoS. On the other hand, if someone launched a DDoS against something like eBay or ETrade -- something the average person can see, feel, touch, and understand much more clearly than DNS -- then, one, the effects would've been much more apparent much more quickly and, two, the reactions from the average user of those services would've been much angrier.
Is DNS security an issue? Sure. But so is Internet security in general, but when major websites are inaccessible because of a worm or DDoS, who do we yell at aside from the site operator/owner? Not sure. As deplorable as ICANN's behavior is, they're also being made a scapegoat for bigger network issues, methinks, because there's no other actual organization to yell at.
Re:The Internet's as fragile as an egg (Score:1)
Sheesh, after nuclear armageddon you think anyone's worried about the internet? I think most slashdot user's will have more to worry about than downloading porn by then!
There'll be no power for your 'puter anyway.
IP (Score:1)
Re:IP (Score:2)
Ummm, who do you think runs those whois servers you're querying? The same companies that control the DNS servers.
No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot.org: 66.35.250.150
freeporn.com: 209.150.195.101
Wheew... well that about covers my use of the Internet.
--Zuchini
Re:No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:2)
Strangely enough, it was unable to resolve the IP address which my machine probably accesses most often during the day. I asked it to look up the IP address for localhost, and got: ``Unable to convert localhost''. Oh, well. It's in my hosts file.
Re:No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:1)
Now if only there was an easy way to remember "128.174.237.148", and automate doing lookups through it, we'd be all set. First one there gets to be the new root server :)
Re:No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:1)
You forgot 127.0.0.1! Life would really suck if you couldn't fine localhost. Better put that one in the /etc/hosts file.
Re:No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:2)
Re:No time to lose!! Save our precious IPs! (Score:1)
Open NIC (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ [unrated.net]
It's a democratic, non-national set of dns servers that sit above the regular root server and offering additional top-level domain spaces such as:
By altering where you point your DNS, you get everything you always had, plus the above, plus more redundancy.
HOWTO (Score:1)
2) You're done! Click here to test! [dev.null]
Re:Open NIC (Score:2)
Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identies them in physical world - isn't it obvious something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
Facts:
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. But they would rather be aiding and abetting corporations to violate Trademark and Competition Law.
Virtually every word is trademarked - most are many times over (in different types of business and/or country) so every domain can be 'stolen' in UDRP from the legal owner, on the premise that it is confusingly similar.
Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it.
You can legally use any word, words or initials to start a new business without registering a trademark - providing you are not passing off, of course. Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm. These are unlawfully being prevented from getting their name in Sunrise period.
In this vast ocean of domains on the Internet, mostly non-trademarks, a marker is absolutely essential - for people to identify it as trademark - e.g. a new protected TLD of
name.class.country.reg would identify all trademarks - e.g. apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg.
This could be used as certificate of authentication. There is no restriction on business, it can still use current/new domain, just directed to dot REG.
For more facts please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - Not associated with United Nations WIPO.org
Re:Facts (Score:1)
Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar.
I think a little more review of "confusingly similar" and the apple analogy would help UDRP decisions seem much more reasonable. Co-existence of similar marks in the real world is dependent on a low likelihood of confusion of source, origin, affiliation, endorsement or sponsorship, meaning that the whole reason you have a million uses of the word "apple" is that no consumer confuses a grimy independent auto repair shop with a record label. In effect, it is in wide legal use not because they are confusingly similar but instead because confusion is unlikely. Enter the internet, and suddenly you lose many of the formerly distinguishing factors like geographic location (.com's are everywhere and anyone can get to you), channels of trade (on the internet, you don't walk down to the docks to by APPLE boats and head to the stadium to watch the APPLES play- you sit at your desk and click), and appearance or pronunciation (no graphics in a domain name, no sighs-co vs. sis-co).
Obviously, I shouldn't expect this opinion to be very popular here, but I'd rather get Microsoft on my first try at microsoft.com,
Moreover, that's another reason
You misrepresent me (Score:2)
You are most wrong - and you misrepresent me. I am pro-trademark - not wanting anybody to be conned by some fraudster passing themselves off as trademark holders. In their communications, nobody in USPTO or US DoC has ever accused me of this.
You would know you are wrong if you looked at WIPO.org.uk - Quote: "Trademarks are for the good of the people, as well as business. Attorneys would say, "The basic tenet of trademark law is to protect consumers and trademark owners from confusion in the marketplace"."
Then look at Comments on WIPO Interim Report [wipo.int]
Quote: "Though the authorities SAY they have good ideals - to protect trademarks on the Internet..."
> I think a little more review of "confusingly similar" and the apple analogy would help UDRP decisions seem much more reasonable.
UDRP is unlawful and fatally flawed. It violates Trademark and Competition Law - and pisses on First Amendment.
> Co-existence of similar marks in the real world is dependent on a low likelihood of confusion of source,
The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Obviously, I shouldn't expect this opinion to be very popular here, but I'd rather get Microsoft on my first try at microsoft.com,
You would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used to complain about their monopoly or business practices?
Domain names are not trademarks, ask creator Paul Mockapetris. He designed DNS for the function of naming resources - not as unlawful fatally flawed trademark system. He was asked, what do you wish you had invented? He replied, "A directory system for the Internet that wouldn't be controlled by the politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats."
Professor Milton Mueller (Associate Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies) recent study: "Conclusion: Domain Names are not Trademarks". To be trademarks he states, "If this is true then the exclusivities associated with business and product names should be applied systematically to them."
The exclusivity's are obvious:
1. That it is a registered trademark - given that ALL words are trademarks and so can be confused with other domains.
2. The country of the trademark - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in DIFFERENT country.
3. The type of business (classification) - given that ANY word may be (is) used by different business in SAME country.
So, as domain names are not trademarks - you would prevent the use of the word 'microsoft' to be used by authorized agents e.g. microsoftshop.com - or an individual offering training of microsoft office - e.g microsofttrainer.com?
> And in the end, it you take it from the perspective of the average guy (that is, the person trademark law is most trying to protect) doesn't it make sense that Nissan.com would be the car maker's site? After all, that's what they'll type into their browser when looking for it.
Nissan motors are unlawfully overreaching their trademark - Mr Nissan is not even in the same trademark classification - ask any trademark lawyer.
> Moreover, that's another reason
You completely miss the point (deliberately?) - it will be issued to all registered trademark holders.
Given every word is trademarked - most many times - why should big business be allowed prevent small business and the public from using every dictionary word?
People will associate
If they are redirected to it - they will accept it as certificate of authentication.
Anybody that would abridge peoples use of words is obviously anti-First Amendment and likely in corporate pocket.
Re:You misrepresent me (Score:1)
You do an excellent job of quoting completely specious authorities. Referring me to your own website, for one, doesn't exactly get the ball rolling.
The part about your analysis that fails to persuade is that it tries to discuss this in a vacuum. ('Prof. Somedude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that the public treats them that way. 'Domain name creator Otherdude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that they clearly function as an indicator of source in the vast majority of instances.) Likelihood of confusion is appropriately determined on a factual basis, so there's no way you can tell me in advance what is confusing and what isn't. Without wasting words trying to influence someone with an apparent big grudge, I'll be brief: you miss the point that
Given people conduct business on the internet - most lots of business - why should some small random guy the average consumer has never heard of be able to interfere with business between a consumer and the proprietor of a famous brand?
Besides, you're also ignoring how UDRP bails out seriously screwed up 'landrush' systems.
Confussion (Score:2)
You do excellent job of diverting attention away from root of problem.
> Referring me to your own website, for one, doesn't exactly get the ball rolling.
If you are going to accuse me of promoting "that trademarks are some evil pro-corporation conspiracy" - then you should back that up. The website makes intent clear.
> The part about your analysis that fails to persuade is that it tries to discuss this in a vacuum.
The analysis is accurate (demonstrably so) and takes into account all aspects of the problem.
The fact is that authorities are helping corporations violate the Law - or do you deny that?
> ('Prof. Somedude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that the public treats them that way.
Professor Milton Mueller is recognized expert in this field - you seem to not know this. You appear ignorant in other aspects of this.
I shall answer second point in example below.
> 'Domain name creator Otherdude said these weren't trademarks' despite the fact that they clearly function as an indicator of source in the vast majority of instances.)
DNS creator Paul Mockapetris would be the best person to ask about the project - would he not?
I shall answer second point in example below.
> Without wasting words trying to influence someone with an apparent big grudge,
You misrepresent me again. I have no grudge - I want to stop corporations abuse the Law - at the expense of small business and the public.
> I'll be brief: you miss the point that
You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
Duh - how about nissan.car.us.reg?
Or - directory services nissan..us.reg - brings up all nissan trademarks.
Or - like yellow pages they could have several entries - nissan.motor.us.reg - simps is it not?
> Artificially moving trademark issues to a separate TLD might placate you (what lost domain name ticked you off this much?)
How does this move anything? - It gives certificate of authentication.
I have not lost any domain.
> but it won't do the average guy any good.
As an average guy - ask how the current situation answers the example below.
> The rhetorical question in answer to yours is: Given people conduct business on the internet - most lots of business - why should some small random guy the average consumer has never heard of be able to interfere with business between a consumer and the proprietor of a famous brand?
This does not interfere - it helps avoid confussion.
You did not answer my questions inc. The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
> Besides, you're also ignoring how UDRP bails out seriously screwed up 'landrush' systems.
Landrush was mostly screwed up because of unlawful Sunrise period - giving priority to trademarks in an open market.
> Likelihood of confusion is appropriately determined on a factual basis, so there's no way you can tell me in advance what is confusing and what isn't.
Okay - if you are so clever.
Trademark law states the consumer should not be confused. So, you wanted to order a pizza over the Internet from Domino. But you do not find it at domino.com. Which one of these US trademarked businesses do you think own it?
I know some of these are the same company - exact numbers do not matter - the principle does.
1 78054972 DOMINO EASYEDIT
2 78043999 GET THE DOOR. IT'S DOMINO'S.
3 78043563 DOMINO'S PIZZA ALWAYS DELIVERS
4 78014495 DOMINO'S TOUCHDOWN TAKE-OFF
5 78028015 DOMINO'S PIZZA PAC
6 78009108 DOMINO'S, GOOD PIZZA.
7 76240732 BUTTERFLY DOMINOES
8 76078073 DOMINO EFFECT
9 76193486 DOMINO
10 76007760 DOMINO
11 75499984 DOMINO
12 75778831 RUNS WITH LOTUS.DOMINO
13 75198223 DOMINO.BROADCAST
14 75791660 2433096 PEOPLE FIRST! DOMINO'S PIZZA
15 75598015 2434012 DOMINO'S DOMINO'S PIZZA
16 75198226 DOMINO.MERCHANT
17 75198224 DOMINO.HEADLINES
18 75198222 DOMINO.ACTION
19 75832621 DOMIN-8
20 75613168 2397006 DOMINO
21 75489347 DOMINO EXTENDED SEARCH
22 75813822 DOMINO'S PIZZA RANCH
23 75613169 DOMINO.DOC IMAGING CLIENT
24 75613170 DOMINO.DOC STORAGE MANAGER
25 75909782 DOMINO
26 75747277 DOMINO
27 75705667 2341094 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
28 75668552 JAVINO
29 75566938 2340269 DOMINO'S PIZZA PRINT PROGRAM
30 75514691 2292434 DOMINO'S PIZZA IMAGE 2000
31 75504692 2334538 ORDERDOMINOS.COM
32 75503344 2328038 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE
33 75500376 2359221 DOMINO'S HEATWAVE DOMINO'S PIZZA
34 75385423 2238421 DOMINO'S UNIVERSITY
35 75363014 2343965 DOMINOSERVER
36 75359535 2286280 DOMINOPLUS
37 75327355 2226774 PINK DOMINO
38 75322278 DOMINO.COMMERCE
39 75310768 DOMINO INTRANET STARTER PACK
40 75306520 2199099 DOMINO'S ONLINE!
41 75248234 2293117 DOMINO PLUS
42 75241600 2182970 DOUBLE WUBBLE DOMINOES
43 75214086
44 75214085
45 75214084
46 75179392 2276986 DOMINO
47 75161656 2200695 AMERICAN DOMINOES
48 75141065 2069876 DOMINO
49 75124486 DOMINO
50 75084591 2082479 DOMINO PARK
51 75078094 2109837 DOMINOWIZARD
52 75046809 2047395 DOMINO
53 75005459 2307662 DOMINO
54 74300278 1921539 DOMINO COMPUTERS
55 74732376 2005425 COLOR DOT DOMINOES
56 74636244 2007581 DOMINO
57 74623484 2180906 DOMINOATM
58 74618236 1941096 GOTTA BE DOMINO'S
59 74548867 1927565 PINK DOMINO
60 74534533 1959676 DOMINO
61 74499406 1880479 DOMINO
62 74491432 2131544 DOMINO
63 74472238 2053055 DOMINOLAN
64 74472237 2051098 DOMINO
65 74472094 2051097 DOMINOWAN
66 74470359 1877911 KISS-DOMINO
67 74436986 1856079 DONNY DOMINO
68 74361281 1975582 DOMINO CGT DUPLEX
69 74277464 1744721 DOMINO'S
70 74210777 1768801 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY KNOWS LIKE DOMINO'S HOW YOU LIKE PIZZA AT HOME
71 74133773 1682070 BUCK$ BAG DOMINO'S PIZZA
72 74075314 1647572 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
73 74048366 1665372 DOMINO'S PIZZA PIZZAZZ
74 74021946 1620123 DOMINO RALLY
75 73814024 1604865 1-888-DOMINOS
76 73810670 1585978 DOMINO REDI-FOND
77 73793978 1582848 DOMINO'S FARMS
78 73776718 1568673 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER
79 73749832 1555133 DOMINO'S PIZZA NOBODY DELIVERS BETTER.
80 73749120 1539093 DOMINO
81 73729899 1520302 DOMINO'S PIZZA
82 73729898 1519402 DOMINO'S PIZZA
83 73722665 1525625 COUNT ON DOMINO'S
84 73710763 1504835 DOMINOTES
85 73664947 1475625 DOMINO'S PIZZA
86 73664887 1473901 DOMINO'S PIZZA
87 73602462 1427679 DOMINO'S PIZZA
88 73487625 1382556 DOMINO'S PIZZA
89 73463366 1388040 DOMINO
90 73460960 1306462 COLLEGE OF PIZZAROLOGY DOMINOS PIZZA
91 73431713 1325825 DOMINO
92 73429900 1310321 DOMINO'S PIZZA DELIVERS
93 73427337 1280877 DOMINO
94 73349691 1249196 DOMINO'S PIZZA
95 73265845 1166751 DOMINO'S PIZZA
96 73226590 1185666 DOMINO
97 73215481 1191810 DOMINO
98 73165932 1146369 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP DOMINO TOURNAMENT
99 72251933 0832403 DOMINO
100 72141219 0746508 DOMINO
101 71587865 0565192 DOMINO
102 71178908 0171995 DOMINO
103 71178907 0171994 DOMINO
104 71038424 0073099 DOMINO
105 70037177 0037177 DOMINO
Or is it owned in one of 200 other countries?
Or is owned by small business without trademark?
Come on - if you are so clever.
Re:Confussion (Score:1)
Professor Milton Mueller is recognized expert in this field... DNS creator Paul Mockapetris would be the best person to ask about the project - would he not?
No, he wouldn't. If either of these guys is contending what you represent they are, they are simply wrong. Let me start here: A trademark is any word, phrase, slogan, symbol, design, device, or combination thereof which identifies the source of goods or services and distinguishes these goods or services from those of another. Now, does EBAY serve as a source of services and does it distinguish those services from, say, the auctions at xuppa.com? Clearly it does.
The analysis is accurate (demonstrably so) and takes into account all aspects of the problem.
I disagree. This problem presents nothing more than a simple need to balance competing interests: on one side you've got concepts of trademark, on the other you've got third party desire to occupy and use any domain name. Again, what I assert is that your 'ivory-tower' analysis ignores how people use the internet as well as any factual considerations relating to particular domains or marks. Honestly, do you believe I should have the right to register and use cocacola.com? If so, we're going nowhere. I find it impossible to suggest that my personal interest in registering and using a particular domain name is more compelling than the other billion internet users finding what they think they're going to find when they type 1) arguably the strongest and most well-known mark in the world and 2) the most well-known TLD into their browsers. Frankly, unless a person has some sort of anti-corporate chip on their shoulder, I'm not sure how you'd convince them that some unknown bunch of people out there that feel entitled to the freedom to use some unknown domain names is more important than that person's need to get what they think they're getting.
You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
Because nobody's looking for Mr. Nissan, we're all trying to buy a car. We might as well ask why shouldn't Mr Nissan use davidnissan.notreg.us.
But you do not find it at domino.com
Silly European, all Americans know its DOMINO'S and not DOMINO, and sure enough, I typed dominos.com in my browser and got the pizza chain. If you're alleging they're wrongly going after the registrant of domino.com, well, all I can tell you is I haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be. I'll grant that it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely there is some UK (or whereever) DOMINO mark that remotely approches the strength and fame of DOMINO'S. How else would they occur to you as an example?
This does not interfere - it helps avoid confussion. You did not answer my questions inc. The only way to avoid confusion is to supply more information - yes or no?
This sentence really helped me crystalize my thoughts, thanks. There are numerous ways to avoid confusion in the brick and mortar world beyond mere information, but let's generally set that aside. You can supply more information along the lines of a giant banner above your store reading "MARK is a trademark of PROPRIETOR and this store in no way affiliated with MARK or PROPRIETOR." Or you can educate your employees to always explain the same at any mention of the mark. But it doesn't prevent confusion if the banner is in Chinese or the employees only speak Klingon. Thus blah.blah.reg.us can't be reliably said to reduce any confusion- day 1 after rollout, 998 million internet users are still trying nissan.com for the auto maker.
Answer my questions - just for a change (Score:2)
Why do you wish to abridge the publics choice of words?
> This would be so much more fun if anyone else were reading.
While one person seeks the Truth, what does fun matter - the effort is still worth while.
> A trademark is
Yep - I know all this.
A trademark is NOT a word that prevents all other businesses from using dictionary words (providing not passing off) - is it?
It is unlawful for trademarks to do this - is it not?
Also - some big businesses try to prevent people using seemingly made up words - even though these words have been used before them.
Also - eBay tried to stop 'Appraise Bay' from being used on the Internet. There are many hundreds of trademarks in the U.S. with the word 'bay' - likely thousands all over the world. There are untold numbers more of small businesses legally using the word 'bay' without a registered trademark.
Is it not a true fact, that Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it?
> This problem presents nothing more than a simple need to balance competing interests.
I disagree - but tell me the reason - tell me why simple need to balance competing interests has not been solved?
As for 'ivory-tower' analysis - it takes into account everybodies right to use domains for lawful purpose.
> do you believe I should have the right to register and use cocacola.com?
I believe you have the right to use cocacola.newTLD to make legitimate complaint about the company.
If you believe people do not have right to make complaint - if you are anti-First Amendment - then I surely agree with you - "we're going nowhere."
Incidentally - those in corporate pocket always use the cocacola example - look at many of UDRP decisions - here are a few made by corrupt UN WIPO on their own - does not include other arbitration services and cases of domains that have been bullied by lawyers (is an old list):
video net, roller blade, best locks, nitro fuel, tonsil, north face, marketing mix, 0xygen, edentist, state-farm, new-gig, video direct, iphones, open mail, traditions, open view, unicode, southern company, pc gateway, ultra pure water, time keeper, click here, current, beauty co, sound-choice, e-auto-parts, eresolution, body and soul, talk about, esquire, office specialists, crew, praline, the total package, faith net, buy PC, home interiors, big dog, euro consult, music web, RANT...etc
Very different from the example of cocacola that corrupt lawyers use - are they not?
> find it impossible to suggest that my personal interest in registering and using a particular domain name is more compelling than the other billion internet users finding what they think they're going to find when they type.
You would allow ONE trademark to prevent all the rest from using their mark - and prevent small businesses from using their name in commerce.
Not very lawful - are you?
It is not mutually exclusive - is it?
Also - why cannot apple.computer.us.reg, apple.computer.uk.reg, apple.record.uk.reg etc. etc. ALL use their trademark?
> Frankly, unless a person has some sort of anti-corporate chip on their shoulder,
It is nothing to do with being anti-corporate - it is to do with being fair and equitable.
G> You miss the point - why should Nissan Motors prevent Mr Nissan using his own name?
> Because nobody's looking for Mr. Nissan, we're all trying to buy a car. We might as well ask why shouldn't Mr Nissan use davidnissan.notreg.us.
The vast majority of domains are not owned by trademarks are they?
The registered trademark symbol ® (called 'R' in a circle or RTM) identifies them in physical world - is not it obvious, that something is required in cyberspace to perform same function?
G> But you do not find it at domino.com
> Silly European, all Americans know its DOMINO'S and not DOMINO,..all I can tell you is I haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be. I'll grant that it's possible, but it seems highly unlikely there is some UK (or whereever) DOMINO mark that remotely approches the strength and fame of DOMINO'S. How else would they occur to you as an example?
European? - You insult me
So - if you "haven't the faintest guess who the hell that might be", then everybody that wants domino is going to be confused also - most are going to get wrong business - true or false?
> There are numerous ways to avoid confusion in the brick and mortar world beyond mere information, but let's generally set that aside.
We are talking about a word on its own, say for example 'domino' - how can you avoid confusion in cyberspace?
The odds are that most people typing domino.com get the wrong business - true or false?
So again (longer version) - The only way to avoid confusion, on the Internet, is to supply more information - yes or no?
> day 1 after rollout, 998 million internet users are still trying nissan.com for the auto maker.
When they do not find it there - they try nissan.car.us.reg - and find it straight away.
As most words are shared by many trademarks - 998 million internet users are still trying (InsertWord).com and not finding it there.
Quote from Trademark Act: "the registered owner of any one of those trade marks does not have the right to prevent the registered owner of any other of those trade marks from using that trade mark except to the extent that the first-mentioned owner is authorised to do so under the registration of his or her trade mark."
Why should one trademark be allowed to prevent everybody else from using the word - when it is unlawful for them to do so?
Re:Answer my questions - just for a change (Score:1)
That's like asking me why I want to abridge my neighbor's right to address his house using a non-arabic house number, made-up street name... making the guy adhere to what the rest of us are doing in no way diminishes his right to ownership. Similarly, I can't imagine how a particular domain name is critical to free expression, when there is obviously no lack of an alternate forum.
A trademark is NOT a word that prevents all other businesses from using dictionary words (providing not passing off) - is it?
Passing off is a deliberate, bad faith intent to deceive. Breaching my rights as a consumer requires no such intent- if you confuse me, that's enough. Moreover, we're not talking about 'using a dictionary word', we're talking about using a mark as a domain name. I've got no problem with you saying the phrase "2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia" but if you somehow feel entitled to receive mail addressed that way, it's an entirely different thing.
Is it not a true fact, that Corporations have no desire at all to prevent confusion on the Internet - they just wish illegal dominance of it?
No. That's just your opinion.
tell me why simple need to balance competing interests has not been solved?
Well, some might say it has been. What I think you're saying is you disagree with specific UDRP decisions, but I don't see any comments which are more applicable to the process as a whole.
Very different from the example of cocacola that corrupt lawyers use - are they not?
I dunno, it really isn't very hard to lose an argument despite being right if you don't argue it well. Since I doubt arbitrators are per se unreasonable, I can rather safely assume that the losers deserved to lose. Not to mention, the body of decisions is increasing and is therefore less likely to encounter any particularly poorly-reasoned decision again.
Also - why cannot apple.computer.us.reg, apple.computer.uk.reg, apple.record.uk.reg etc. etc. ALL use their trademark?
They can, but unless and until user behavior changes, it'll do no good as far as confusion, etc.
We are talking about a word on its own, say for example 'domino' - how can you avoid confusion in cyberspace?
You can clear a reasonable swath out of the forest of domain names around a mark. I fail to see any harm in such a practice, you simply allege that it's somehow illegal or hurts my rights to free speech.
The odds are that most people typing domino.com get the wrong business - true or false?
Specious, again. Even your proposal wouldn't fix this: ooops, says user, I typed domino.nonintuitivethirdlevel.reg.us but that's not DOMINO'S pizza.
So again (longer version) - The only way to avoid confusion, on the Internet, is to supply more information - yes or no?
Nope, again, you can clear a reasonable swath out of the forest of domain names around a mark. Not to mention, likelihood of confusion is never zero, so the question should really be does your method of 'supplying more information' significantly reduce it? As far as I can tell, all it does is fiat no confusion, as in "oh, there's no way anyone could be confused about affiliation, sponsorship, etc. with nissan.com, after all, it's not nissan..reg.us."
Why should one trademark be allowed to prevent everybody else from using the word - when it is unlawful for them to do so?
Again, it's not use of the word, it's use of the mark or something confusingly similar domain name. If you're so pro-trademark as you've claimed, surely you can understand how dilution and disparagement aren't concepts that sit out to the side of the pro-consumer basis of trademark law, but rather they go hand in hand. On this level, it is more than appropriate to grant some kind of exclusive rights to Coke for cocacola.newtld- after all, why would I need a domain name including their mark to make my 'legitimate complaint' if not to drive traffic to my site through confusion? Besides, you're ignoring the fact that myopinionisthatcokesucks.com would never be transferred by the UDRP process. Your quote of the Trademark Act is not germane- the UDRP applies to cases where one party has "no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name." Clearly, two competing trademark registration holders (as contemplated by the Trademark Act) would not be able to avail themselves of UDRP provisions since holding a trademark registration is prima facie evidence of a right.
Did I answer all your questions?
I understand now (Score:2)
It appears that you work for, quote "one of the largest law firms in the Southwest." (US)
I would imagine they make a lot of money from these problems.
You did not disclose this.
I now understand your deliberately spin on these arguments - and see straight through you.
Re:I understand now (Score:1)
Nope, I'm a French tennis player.
You did not disclose this. I now understand your deliberately spin on these arguments - and see straight through you.
Several problems:
1. Assumes my interests are somehow connected with my employer's.
2. Implies that non-disclosure renders my reasoning invalid.
3.
All it really means is I'm well-educated on some of the underlying issues.
I could not understand why you would want consumer confusion for ownership of domain names.
Actually, what I've been saying is your
A lawsuit against ICANN (Score:1)
If the registrar does not follow the rules and delete registration, then if ICANN does not decertify Versign for taking bogus information and refusing to delete them, then go after both ICANN and Verisign for and not enforce under the theory of 3rd party beneficiary of contract.
Right, right. Good Idea there, Stu... (Score:1)
Internet able to survive nuclear attack? Grrr! (Score:4, Insightful)
Few memes bug me more than this one.
The internet is not designed to survive a nuclear attack.
The Arpanet was not designed to survive a nuclear attack.
Read Where the wizards stay up late: the origins of the internet [amazon.com] for confirmation.
The Arpanet was built with multiple redundant paths to withstand normal, mundane disasters, like fires, local power outages, construction backhoes digging up communications cables, not nuclear attack.
Yet you hear well-educated people, who should know better, repeat this nonsense all the time. I guess it makes too good a story.
Yes, I can see Richard didn't actually say it could survive a nuclear attack, merely that it was touted as being able to survive. But this meme is so annoying it bugs me when people even hint it is true.
Re:Internet able to survive nuclear attack? Grrr! (Score:2)
The Arpanet was built with multiple redundant paths to withstand normal, mundane disasters, like fires, local power outages, construction backhoes digging up communications cables, not nuclear attack.
Yet you hear well-educated people, who should know better, repeat this nonsense all the time. I guess it makes too good a story.
Actually, there does seem to be some basis for the story. Michael Swaine's column in the Jan. issue of DDJ is mostly a review of Linked: The New Science of Networks. He explains that the DOD did commission RAND to design a communications network that would survive a nuclear attack. However, the government never used the analysis or design.
Easy (Score:2, Funny)
Easy. They just need to have sons, name them Dubya, and have the sons elected into office.
who pays? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who pays ICANN's paychecks? Is it the domain registrars?
Can a company or individual sue a company for anti-trust? Or does it have to be a government? And could ICANN be sued for this?
Roll your own DNS (Score:1)
Just a thought.
Alternatives and education (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with these types of articles is that they don't explain anything. Do you know why only 700 some people voted for ICANN board members in the US? Because very few people even know what DNS means: it means Domain Name System. Now, you can't just say that. You have to say what it does. The DNS binds a certain web-address (such as www.slashdot.org), which you type in your web-browser, to its location in computer-space, represented by its IP (Internet Protocol) number, which might be something like 135.352.653.354. DNS is necessary because no one can remember IP numbers, and you need to have easy-to-remember things to type in.
Now, there does not need to be one and only one DNS. Different people can use different resolution systems. The main one is that of ICANN, but free public-interest alternatives such as OpenNIC exist. Also, note that there is no reason why you have to abide by ICANN's assignment of any website to its IP number. You can -- in your hosts file, a file on your computer -- make it so that web addresses assign to the IP you want them do. Don't think the courts were right in stealing Nissan.com from its rightful owner, a computer business owner? Then assign Nissan.com to the actual IP address of his website. Don't think that Stampede.com should belong to a corporation which makes useless products you have no need for? Fine, reassign it in your hosts file to the IP address of Stampede.org, the Linux distro.
The point is, you the user have power to assign any web address to any IP address. you also have the power to choose whether to use ICANN or OpenNIC...I use my HOSTS file first, then OpenNIC, then ICANN.
In fact, anyone can start a DNS system. All it takes is a server. The only thing is getting major recognition. But that doesn't matter: people who want a free, public-interest DNS will be able to find the appropriate one's. I think that OpenNIC is wrong when they say they won't do anything to conflict with ICANN's domain name resolution. They should actively counter ICANN when ICANN makes decisions taking domain names away from private individuals and giving them to corporations. The court's have no business interfering with OpenNIC's decisions on who to assign domain-names to via its server: this is a private organization, and it can assign domain-names to whatever IP address it wants to. Corporations don't like that, too fucking bad. Users can choose which domain name resolution systems to go to...if corporations don't like OpenNIC assigning intel.com to someone who is selling information services, then they can try to convince people to use ICANN instead of OpenNIC. But in the end, its up to each individual user to decide: Intel (for example) has no right to have intel.com assigned to the IP address for its website on every single DNS system. I can start my own DNS system, convince all you fellow slashdotters to use it, and assign intel.com to my own website! How about that!
Now, there is an obvious problem with having conflicting DNS systems between ICANN and OpenNIC...that is, that ICANN might assign intel.com to 135.354.535.343, while OpenNIC will assign it to 463.534.643.134. Thus, hyperlinking becomes a problem...if I type in , then it might mean a different thing for someone who uses ICANN and for someone who uses OpenNIC or dh003iNIC
So, what can we
- Stop using ICANN as our primary service.
- Use OpenNIC as our primary service.
- Modify our host files to fuck over greedy corporations, and create a server system for these specific modifications so anyone can access them. If thee aren't to many, just post them and offer them for download. I figure there might be about a thousand or so web addresses which ICANN has assigned to various entities that we disagree (and should disagree) with.
- Create automated services to resolve web-address conflictions between different services by auto-converting them to IP numbers and then re-converting back to web-addresses, depending on which service (ICANN or OpenNIC) is used.
So, in short, there is something we can do other than just try to reform ICANN. I personally think ICANN's hopeless anyways. Selling web-address locations for all kinds of money is absurd...its only one entry in a file pinning a web-address to an IP number: costs next to nothing to do. There could easily be as many top-level domain's as there are ideas...you the individual user could even create personal "domains" in your hosts file.Re:Alternatives and education (Score:2)
Re:Alternatives and education (Score:2)
Re:Alternatives and education (Score:2)
Isn't it much easier to assume that it's difficult to make a system simple to use? "Never attribute to malice what can best be explained by stupidity." Oh, and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
all that the low-vote count proves is that ICANN is corrupt
The vote count proves no such thing. It may or may not be true, but the voter turnout does not prove it.
When I saw the dead and dying Afghani children on TV, I felt a renewed sense of national security. God Bless America.
Please change your signature. It is deeply offensive.
Re:Alternatives and education (Score:2)
Please change your signature. It is deeply offensive.
Tough. My signature will stay as it is until I tire of it. I will say whatever I want to, and I have the right to do so. Right now, I have that signature as support for Katie Sierra. I do not agree with her views regarding the war on terrosim, but that is irrelevant. I support her right to say what she said without being suspended from school for saying it. What is outrageous is your attempt and other's attempts to shut up people who disagree with the war on terrorism.
Re:Alternatives and education (Score:2)
Actually, if you'll notice, it was just a request, not an attempt to shut you up. Based on what I know about you, I would shut you up in an instant if I could. But since that's not an option, I'll just ask. And I'll keep asking.
Ah, now I get it (Score:2)
Re:Those Insensitive Clods!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
DNS is dying.
Naked, petrified DNS.
Hot DNS down your pants
DNS the caveman.
Re:Those Insensitive Clods!!!! (Score:1)