new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

Wed Mar 7 02:11:08 UTC 2001

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
> > 
> > Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> > reverse-hijack domains 
> 
> Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation.  So, I spent the 
> better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.  
> Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.  
> 
> Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?

Here's a few to get you started:

barcelona.com
dodgevipers.com
bodacious-tatas.com
corinthians.com
crew.com
kwasizabantu.com
tonsil.com

Also, you can see: http://dcc.syr.edu/roughjustice.htm which is an
analysis of the UDRP done by Dr. Milton Mueller.

> Here, I will agree.  My observation is that they chose lackluster 
> TLDs to avoid controversy on this, the first introduction of new 
> TLDs in a dozen years.  
> 
> More will be forthcoming as operational experience is gained.  And 
> that's our area of expertise -- operational -- isn't it?
> 
> 
> > paying a non-refundable 50k fee in a
> 
> The fee was always (and I'm going back to IETF, IAHC, and various 
> other discussions) expected to be non-refundable.  Pay as you go.  
> Nobody else pays for your cost to operate.  Very libertarian.  

Except that those that paid 50k and were rejected have absolutely zero to
show for the attempt.

> > completely arbitrary and capricious process, 
> 
> Really?  In the legal sense?  What proof do you offer?

The personal experience of being there. They completely winged it, and
were fumbling around on stage for ways to decide which TLDs to choose. Try
listening to the Real Audio broadcast sometime.

> > perhaps you could point to
> > some of the many successes of ICANN as an organization?
> 
> The public participation around the world has far outstripped anything 
> I'd ever expected.  On that basis alone, it's a success.

The public had nothing to do with the selection of the TLDs in
question, the only elected board members weren't seated until
after the decisions had been made(convienent that.) Currently a study is
being undertaken to see if an "At large membership"(the public) and the
associated board seats are appropriate at all. 