Queen Loses Out In newzealand.com Dispute

pidge-nz writes "Hmmmm. Does a country own the rights to its name? Looks like the WIPO thinks not. Here's the New Zealand Herald short article on the decision. My Personal opinion is that they all are a bunch of plonkers - all three partcipants. NZ Govt for not bothering to register the name earlier, Virtual Countries for not bothering to ask to use/"license" the name, and the WIPO for setting a stupid precedent."

agree with the ruling

[smoondog]

New Zealand should have access to newzealand.gov, but newzealand.com is open to anyone. fp?

-Sean

TLD's

[MacAndrew]

It's an interesting problem -- sure New Zealand has a claim to .gov, but should they also get .com? Why not every TLD? (.net,.com,.org,.biz.....) Well, no. I've noticed that a lot of sites that are appropriately registered as .org or .gov also buy the .com variation so that default searches will lead to them, also. What about variations like NZ.com? Kiwi.com?

This wasn't a trademark ruling, which would be another obstacle to inappropriate use of an entity's name.

WIPO's focus on good faith was appropriate -- the point is to root out squatters -- and the outcome seems plausible. As least the winner is from a democracy! I'm sure the Queen was only a technical party and NZ is a democracy, perhaps more so than the States. The U.S. is unfamiliar with titles of nobility ... except maybe musicians like Queen Latifah or Prince, the artist formerly known as glyph. I won't discuss Madonna. :)

Re:agree with the ruling

[jon787]

.gov is for US government institutions

Check out RFC 1591 [isi.edu]

United States Only Generic Domains:

GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. State and local agencies are registered in the country domains (see US Domain, below).

there's more

[MacAndrew]

But is there anything that prohibits non-U.S. gov'ts from using .gov?

This whole nomenclature thing is getting increasingly random. Isn't it odd that only U.S. federal agencies get the appealing .gov, while the rest probably will have to qualify their gov with a country code? (Then again, I wonder how many languages have a good fit between gov and their word for government?) Shouldn't the U.S. append .us in conformity? Don't some already?

A comprehensive list of TLD's [acronymsonline.com]. ... and thank you FTC for nailing some TLD fraudsters [ftc.gov].

Re:there's more

[jon787]

of course there is gop.gov which is a website for a political party....

Re:there's more

[MacAndrew]

gop.gov -- well, that's pretty accurate at the moment, don't you think?

That's not the rnc site (gop.org? rnc.com?), despite appearances -- at the very bottom of the page:

Representative J.C. Watts, Jr., Chairman
Republican Conference, U.S. House of Representatives

Re:agree with the ruling

[smoondog]

You are correct, actually. I may have been mistaken, in my non-US centric views. perhaps, .nz should be up to the new zealand gov't (as another poster pointed out).

-Sean

Re:agree with the ruling

[Black Rabbit]

http://www.canada.com/ has belonged to a private corporation for quite a while now.

But then, our government has become known for selling off everything this country values to the highest bidder, or putting it in the dumpster, whichever comes first. Ask any Arrow fan.

First Come First Serve

[oyenstikker]

Oh, i get it. So its supposed to be first come first serve when the little guy is first, but if the Evil Corporation is first, then it should go to the "rightful owner"? Make up your mind /.

Re:First Come First Serve

[grokk]

The real issue?

The subversion of actual, real, useful international bodies like the U.N.O. by fradulent/'legalistic' capitalist poseurs such as the 'WIPO', the 'WTO' -- and whatnot -- to ends which have next to nothing to do what the great mass of the world's people need and require. This outcome is a predictable result of the degeneration of the ideals of the U.N.O. at the hands of these capitalist roaders in the present post-soviet period.

And I can imagine any reply to the above from /.'s libertarian fringe mouth-frothers...

Plonkers

[MacAndrew]

My Personal opinion is that they all are a bunch of plonkers

plonk

(Possibly influenced by British slang
"plonk" for cheap booze, or "plonker" for someone behaving
stupidly; usually written "*plonk*") The sound a newbie
makes as he falls to the bottom of a kill file. While this
term originated in the Usenet newsgroup
news:talk.bizarre, by 1994 it was widespread on Usenet and
mailing lists as a form of public ridicule.

Another theory is that it is an acronym for "Person with
Little Or No Knowledge".

(2002-01-18)

Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe

What about...

[bayankaran]

....plonk.gov? The Queen probably wont object.

Re:Plonkers

[dacarr]

Alternative reference [tuxedo.org], but I'm not sure who had it first.

Not stupid

[gmhowell]

If New Zealand wants a domain, it can be newzealand.org or newzealand.net or newzealand.nz Unless the government of new zealand is a for profit entity. It was registered in 1996. The article doesn't mention, but did the gov't attempt to purchase it from the current owner?

Isn't this the result 'we' wanted from the nissan.com case? newzealand.com was there first, has disclaimers, and isn't competing with the more well known New Zealand (IOW, newzealand.com isn't trying to become the government).

Subdomain

[C.Maggard]

There's a large gain to be had in owning .com names; it's the extension people most frequently remember. NewZealand.gov could be a viable alternative, unless the site's intended use was to highlight vacation plans, tourist spots, etc.

So if it's doing that, why can't it use an alternate address like visitnewzealand.com or something of the like? As much as I dislike cybersquatting, it looks like their only viable alternative is grabbing a different domain and then waiting to snatch up newzealand.com when it expires.

Re:Subdomain

[dacarr]

unless the site's intended use was to highlight vacation plans, tourist spots, etc.

Not necessarily. California has a page about in-state tourism [ca.gov]. It doesn't necessarily point out places like (say) Disneyland, but it's there.

Ruling is correct

[MonTemplar]

From reading the Herald article, the site NewZealand.com was promoting tourism in New Zealand, which is hardly an activity that the government of New Zealand would frown upon, don't you think?

Now, if the site had been home to, say, material inciting act of violence on the citizens and/or institutions of New Zealand, then there most definitely would be a case to answer...

A quick check with Google reveals a healthy-looking govt.nz domain already in existence, similar to the UK's gov.uk system. So it's not as if the New Zealand government are without a home on the Internet, either. :)

Probably just a bunch of fool lawyers trying their luck, nothing to do with the Queen.

Queen still active?

[MullerMn]

I think it's great that even since Freddie died Queen are still undertaking new projects, even if they haven't been lucky this time.

commercial space

[__aafkqj3628]

If I remember correctly, .com is commercial space and there is space for them to use .gov as well as they whole .nz space. Yes, plonkers it right.

Books about NZ owned by government?

[Garry Anderson]

Domain names are NOT just for trademarks and countries - ask DNS creator Paul Mockapetris - normal people can use them also.

The authorities hide solution to these problems, to enable the domains to be easily taken from owner.

The domain name can be used to communicate title, or tell of subject, or give author.

The domain name as title may be picked because it sounds good or is easy to remember.

The domain name as subject would tell readers what they will find within.

The authorities would have you believe that it is always the author.

Countries and places give same false argument.

If you wrote a book entitled 'South Africa', do the rights to this book belong to that countries government?

The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization deal with these conflicts.

UN WIPO would not confirm or deny the simple solution when it was pointed out to them.

You might ask, "Why not - surely they want it?"

Trademark and Competition Law is being violated by big business - so money and power perhaps.

Guess who pays UN WIPO?

There is no doubt in my mind - the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and United States Department of Commerce are corrupt.

Please visit World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk]- no connection with corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !

Countries..

[ottawanker]

What countries do have their country name as a domain?

USA.com,.UnitedStates.com, and United States of America.com all lead to sites not affiliated to the government.

Canada.com leads to another site thats non affiliated with the government..

Really, you should just be able to go to the top level domain of the country, and get a page that's useful, like www.ca or www.us and find a listing of important/useful sites. As it stands, www.ca and www.us seem to lead to the registrar for the domain.

WIPO precedent

[Kanasta]

WIPO precedents have always been pro business. This is no different.

WOOT!

[pitr256]

Score one for the little guys.