Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN Wants To Change Rules For GTLDs

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the don't-they-always dept.

The Internet 127

An anonymous reader writes "The May 10th deadline for comments on the .net registry agreement renewal has arrived with new domain name dispute changes that aid corporations. Instead of UDRP, the new agreement proposes adding the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process to the .net TLD. The URS is a quick $200 process for a trademark holder to disable and take ownership of a domain. URS also reduces the panel size from 1-3 people to a single person. You can still comment on the proposal by sending an email to ICANN (net-agreement-renewal@)."

cancel ×

127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36084876)

So it only takes $200 and a single bribe to take someone's domain. Thats efficiency!

Re:Wow... (2)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085036)

$200? There must be countries where it's cheaper than that to register a trademark. And since it's a global TLD, there wouldn't be any bias towards accepting US trademarks over Albanian ones, would there?

Re:Wow... (1)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085122)

So you didn't even read the summary?

The URS is a quick $200 process for a trademark holder to disable and take ownership of a domain.

Re:Wow... (4, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085450)

I think he means, say we have an American company and an Albanian company. They both own trademarks on "ACME" in their respective countries. The Albanian company gets acme.net first. The American company then comes along and gets the domain hijacked from a perfectly legitimate claim holder and it costs them so little its barely an item in the ledger.

Also, vice versa, the Albanian company could pull that same maneuver on the American company. Also, what if someone registers a trademark in a foreign country where it's easy to get one. They could then, as a "trademark holder" hijack a domain name that they have their eyes on for whatever purpose.

Whether that'll actually happen or not, I have no way of knowing. But this whole plan wreaks. I suspect the public comment period is just for show anyway. Not that it matters, as there appear to be so few public comments that they'll have no reason not to proceed.

Wreaks vs. Reeks (1)

zooblethorpe (686757) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086032)

But this whole plan wreaks.

The fun thing about this misspelling / misuse of yours here is that it works both ways -- both as the word you wrote, "wreaks", meaning to avenge upon or inflict, as in wreaks havoc, and as the word you likely intended, "reeks", meaning to smell extremely strongly, as in reeks of ripe and runny cheese.

</linguistic_pedant_hat>

Cheers,

Re:Wreaks vs. Reeks (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086052)

Well, puns being the lowest form of comedy, they are uniquely suited to Slashdot posts.

Re:Wreaks vs. Reeks (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086252)

Well, puns being the lowest form of comedy

Surely there are lower forms of comedy -- slapstick or shock, for example.

Poorly executed puns are horrid, I agree. But a well-executed pun, with insightful double entendre, can be a magical thing to behold.

Then again, a golden pegasus that shits caviar and pisses wine would also be a wonderful thing to behold, and I haven't seen one of those yet, either.

Re:Wreaks vs. Reeks (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086376)

Well, puns being the lowest form of comedy, they are uniquely suited to Slashdot posts.

"I never knew an enemy to puns who was not an ill-natured man." - Charles Lamb

Re:Wow... (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087632)

I would be more inclined to call it the efficient dismantling of the free web.

We're doomed (1)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084878)

Incoming department of homeland security, protectin us for the terrrists.

Re:We're doomed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36084920)

Big government looking out for big business. The little guy is fu#k@d over.

Re:We're doomed (1)

qubezz (520511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086746)

The Internet community reclaiming the Internet from domain squatters and registrars that scarf up expired domain names that should go back into the wild, just so they can show backpack girl [istockphoto.com] and keyword spam, and extort money from potential domain name users.

Re:We're doomed (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085168)

What if we don't want to be protected! My state's economy is largely dependent on tree-hugging turrrists. Oh...wait a second.

Re:We're doomed (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086112)

"Disinformation Wants to be Free"

Re:We're doomed (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087080)

Exactly. The internet is about the free and open exchange and sale of other people's ideas !

How dare anyone oppose these. Now where are the Lucy Liu assassin bots to protect us ?

Awesome (4, Insightful)

Catnaps (2044938) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084914)

So now people like Sony can just slap this on, for example, the domain Geohotz was using and it's done- no more website for you. Anti-Sony forum? Bam, shut down. You get my drift. Thanks guys, that's a well thought-out and simply great idea. *facepalm*

Re:Awesome (5, Insightful)

mldi (1598123) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084966)

Exactly. Welcome to the new age of creating dummy corporations just to trademark them and seize a certain domain, just because they can or because it'd be vastly cheaper than buying the domain from the owner.

Thanks guys. Now I can't register shit on .net without running the risk of being taken over by someone claiming a trademark. Makes for solid reliability.

Re:Awesome (2, Insightful)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085370)

Oh no! My glennblech.net domain may be at risk for takeover. I wonder what freedom-fighter Glenn Beck thinks about this.

Re:Awesome (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087138)

It's been advised for as long as I can remember to proactively trademark your domain name. Anybody who's done that previously shouldn't have anything to worry about. The people that do have something to worry about either didn't trademark it or are running fan sites.

Re:Awesome (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36087142)

Now I can't register shit on .net...

What do you mean "now"? You haven't been able to do that for 12 years.

shit.net was registered in 1999.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085228)

I think that is close but not quite right. This is for trademarks, not copyright. Basically, you could not register a sony.net without falling into this. It is more borderline if you use therealsony.net or the like because there are restrictions on profiting from your domain name or bashing a direct competitor when using the name. However, this would not prevent something like Geohotz.net from being anti-Sony.

The big problem is that it is now dirt cheap to fire those things off and the chances of winning by a default process is much more likely. Therefore, I see abuse becoming quite rampant.

Re:Awesome (4, Insightful)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085318)

> However, this would not prevent something like Geohotz.net from being anti-Sony.

Sure it would. Behind some closed doors SONY incorporates a new company, say GEO HOT Z vacuum cleaners. Then it pays the $200 fee and takes down Geohotz.net . Done. No warning, no judicial review. Geohotz is gone. Sure they can fight it. Lawyer up buddy!

Re:Awesome (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085886)

Assuming the process will actually be halfway fair, it wouldn't work that way.

Sony could incorporate a new company, but establishing trademarks is harder. A trademark has to be actually used to be legit. Therefore, they'd have to make and sell some vacuum cleaners, and convince the hearing officer that this was for legitimate purposes.

Any process can be abused, and this looks like it's one dishonest person away from abuse. It isn't automatically an abusive process, though.

Re:Awesome (2)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086282)

The problem I see is that the "panel" (can it be called a panel if it's only one person?) will most likely have stronger ties to the business community than to, say, /. readers. Even if he's not downright corrupt, I can guess which way his bias will slant, and with a only single hearing officer, the little guy will be all alone.

Re:Awesome (2)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086302)

There is *ONE* hearing officer doing all of this for every domain and every request.
One person.
I'm sure he's going to do all the appropriate due-diligence making sure the complainant is a legitimate company who actually sold some vacuum cleaners. Perhaps even a site visit to be sure.

Re:Awesome (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086514)

There is *ONE* hearing officer doing all of this for every domain and every request.
One person.
I'm sure he's going to do all the appropriate due-diligence making sure the complainant is a legitimate company who actually sold some vacuum cleaners. Perhaps even a site visit to be sure.

This.

It will end up like the DMCA take-down process in that bogus domain-seizure filings will be rampant and there will be little or no oversight to punish or prevent abuse by those with money & a team of lawyers on retainer.

Just another step on the way to turning the internet into the digital equivalent of "The Shopping Channel".

Strat

Re:Awesome (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086688)

Sony assigns one person (like an intern) to work on a new game, "George the Hot's Zeppelin Racing", and registers a trademark on the abbreviated form of that name. It then files one of these complaints about the domain. Once it has the domain, it cancels the project and reassigns that intern.

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36086776)

According to the article, there are 630,000 entries in the WIPO registry, including just about every dictionary word. This means that the odds of finding a non-infringing domain name are low.

Re:Awesome (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085638)

The real problem is that trademarks are limited to a specific field. Two groups can legitimately own the same trademark, just in different fields. For example, Apple Computer owned the Apple trademark in the context of computers, while Apple Corps owned it in the context of music. Under this rule, both would be able to pay their $200 to have the apple.com domain assigned to them. VAX was another example: owned by DEC in the context of computing, and also a vacuum cleaner maker. Which one gets the vax.com domain?

Re:Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085770)

It's .net not .com

Re:Awesome (3, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085944)

You're fucked no matter how much right to your domain name you have.

Nissan Computer Corporation owned by one Mr Uzi Nissan
http://www.nissan.com/ [nissan.com]

Nissan motors sued him, his company and a third company which had nothing to do with their trademark simply because he was a shareholder.(yes nissan motors is that scummy)
Last I heard it's cost him a million bucks to defend his domain name.

Re:Awesome (2)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086100)

I guess because he spent all that money on lawyers he hasn't been able to afford a web designer since 1996?

Re:Awesome (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086948)

Nissan motors sued him, his company and a third company which had nothing to do with their trademark simply because he was a shareholder.(yes nissan motors is that scummy)

Oh, thanks for the head's up. No LEAF then.

Re:Awesome (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087086)

Apple Computer owned the Apple trademark in the context of computers, while Apple Corps owned it in the context of music

And that was one of the more acrimonious disputes, thought I guess emotions ran rather high with the 'A Paul Corporation' in contention. I guess these days they'd just register moc.daedsilu.ap if they were still putting out music.

Re:Awesome (1)

qubezz (520511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086372)

You mean like if Microsoft decided they had trademarked the entire TLD? [uspto.gov]

Sony? Think Nissan (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086170)

They have been trying for years to take away this guy's [nissan.com] domain. So far, the courts have sided with the rightful owner.

I suppose the idea now is to take away the site from the first person who had the idea of registering a site with his name and give it to a corporation that happens to have the same name.

Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084926)

They made up their minds some time ago that they will sell gTLDs, and come hell or high water that is what they will do. All the reason and logic in the world won't stop this machine.

The best you can do is find what will replace this broken registry system, and invest in it. Of course, eventually the ICANN idiots will end up in charge of that, and break it, too.

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085020)

Of course, eventually the ICANN idiots will end up in charge of that, and break it, too.

But at least that will give us a few years of freedom on the net. When it happens, rinse, lather, repeat.

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (4, Insightful)

winkydink (650484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085164)

ICANN Stopped being about the common good many years ago.

The only goal that ICANN has is to make money for ICANN and the registrars that support it.

Re:goal (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085774)

You almost made me write a new sig, but I'll hold off for now.

"The only goal that ICANN has is to make money for ICANN and the registrars that support it."

Let's rework that famous quote:
"At first I didn't care because I thought it was about a buck for ICANN. Then I discovered the abuse potential but TFA said it was for battling squatters and scammers. I pointed out the potential damage to Your Rights Online but an AC appeared and told me to take off my tinfoil hat. Then the worst case scenario became signed into fact, and it was too late."

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (0)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085376)

We should get rid of all the TLDs, not add more. sony.com, sony.net, sony.org is just a source of confusion, and worse phishing sites, for the average person. It should never have been done that way.

http://sony/ [sony]
http://disney/ [disney]
etc

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085902)

How would you make internal domains?
How would you make test domains?

How would you support having multiple roots?

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086418)

You can still add as many levels of subdomains as you want. I would just get rid of the confusing and useless .com / .net / .org distinction.

http://test1.devel.disney/ [test1.devel.disney]

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086764)

Those are subdomains. I did not say test subdomains, I said test domains.

Maybe I want to have my.company.ops. Would I now need to register fakecompany, just to do some testing?

The distinction is not useless, you just do not understand the use.

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36087276)

I see the confusion, you misspelled "taste". I don't think we will miss domain tasting.

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087312)

No tasting implies that I want domains that other folks can resolve. I want domains that only my internal set of DNS servers know about. I want to replicate all of my company.com stuff to company.int and use that for internal QA testing. No one outside my lan would be able to resolve or talk to those machines.

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087590)

Well what would be stopping you?
You are right, I don't understand the problem.
If you control your DNS server you can resolve anything. company.int, company.whatever.the.hell.you.want.
Why would the lack of .com .org and .net in the wide world stop you from setting up your testing domains?

Re:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086058)

welp, looks like people will be pushing to take control away from ICANN even further. I knew people were working on a replacement DNS system but way to push that along even faster.

goddamn.

There appear to be safeguards in URS (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36084944)

If URS really will work the way its described at http://www.newdomains.org/news/New_gTLDs_Uniform_Rapid_Suspension_System_URS [newdomains.org] , it's not as bad as the summary suggests.

Re:There appear to be safeguards in URS (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085810)

I'm sure this is the last measure [wikipedia.org] that will ever be taken to make the seizing of domains by special interests easier.

Read the IRT report, URS is scary (2)

psyclone (187154) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086714)

Have you read parts of the ICANN PDF (second link from this overview page [thedomains.com] )? Start on page 25, but pay attention to page 29. First, your domains are frozen by the registry, and your registrar is obligated to freeze your whois information. You have two weeks to respond -- hopefully you don't receive email at a frozen domain! Also, hope that the authoritative nameservers any of your domains (URS targeted or not) use are not frozen!

The UDRP process was more transparent, often used larger panels of arbiters, and domains under complaint were not disabled until the UDRP process was complete. The URS describes some unnamed Third Party provider to process the URS request. Where is the transparency? The provider should be required to be open and publicly post all of the filings, requests, and responses. They should also require multi-person teams to not concentrate so much power in the hands of a single individual. It should be modeled after a judiciary system with checks and balances. I'm not saying UDRP can't be streamlined to process bulk requests and even short the response time, but two weeks is very short- especially if your email is disabled at you must wait for the certified letter.

URS is a -- claimed to be guilty, freeze your domain, then prove your innocence -- process.

Time to change the whole basis (2, Interesting)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084986)

It's time to change the whole basis of domain trust relationships. Or, in other words, let's try again to establish a completely separate domain infrastructure.

This is fully possible because there is nothing in the design of the internet protocols that confers power to ICANN and it's corporate teat suckers to own the domain name space. That trust relation exists in a combination of what domain name server each computer chooses to use (in /etc/resolv.conf for Unix/Linux users), and the root zone hints file in the domain name server itself.

Oh, but wait ... the nay-sayers will argue that this will fragment the internet.

And I agree, it will fragment the internet. And that's a GOOD THING. Fragmenting the internet would mean we don't have to deal with corporate B.S. so much. This would then be the people's network. Let the corporates and all their loony lawyer types talk to themselves over the corporate network. We don't want to be bound by stupid rules (like trademarks, patents, and copyrights) that give others the power to take even our very thoughts away from us.

Just start a whole new root zone. Start over with the domain name space. Ban "dot com" entirely (or more precisely, leave "dot com" to the trademark peddlers).

Re:Time to change the whole basis (1, Insightful)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085088)

Go do it. There are such existing already. But don't cry if nobody follows you because it will break their existing internet. There is no way in hell all ISP's and companies would change to yours. Hell, it was tried back in the 90's when internet was still a new thing, and it didn't work back then either.

Re:Time to change the whole basis (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085604)

Actually, it wouldn't be that hard to implement a new set of root domain servers. These servers could forward unrecognized requests to the current domain system.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but getting IE market share down to 50% wasn't easy either, and has been slowly growing. You just need to get a small group of administrators to implement alternative dns servers, the provide a painless and easy way for end users to change their DNS to these new servers.

Of course, this is rife with opportunity for malware, and unscrupulous people, so you would have to establish some kind of parent organization to oversee the whole thing, similar to ICANN. Maybe you'd be replacing one evil with another, but maybe not.. Having competing domain name authorities might force them to play nice.

Yes, it would be an uphill battle.. but so was going after Intels market share by AMD, or going after IE with Firefox or going after WIndows with Linux or Mac. Yes, not all of those succeeded, or are succeeding.. but it can be done if it's well organized.

Re:Time to change the whole basis (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087028)

Actually, it wouldn't be that hard to implement a new set of root domain servers.

It's already been tried. Multiple times. [wikipedia.org] For some reason, people by-and-large prefer what we've got now.

Re:Time to change the whole basis (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087202)

Yes, it's been tried before. It fails for largely social reasons. If there's enough impetus to change, then it can succeed. Previously, there hasn't been enough impetus.

If ICANN starts becomeing more dictatorial and taking peoples domains away on whims, then you will start to see impetus brewing. In general, people don't change unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so. Revolution (or Civil War.. the only difference is who wins) only happens when you have nothing left to lose.

Re:Time to change the whole basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085198)

Your idea isn't even slightly original (or good).

Re:Time to change the whole basis (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086992)

Just start a whole new root zone.

No, roots are proven to be broken, can be taken over, and will attract power/abuse. Figure out something distributed - you've got a whole Internet to work with.

Re:Time to change the whole basis (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087026)

roots are proven to be broken

... sort of like my </i> tag!

Re:Time to change the whole basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36087092)

can we start fixing email too with mandatory spif or something as well while going this route?

By the way, thats gTLD, not GTLD (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084990)

We should be willing to allow some title line flexibility in order to properly designate acronyms. You, me, and every salivating spammer with deep pockets all know that ICANN has been calling it gTLD for a long time now.

Say goodbye to your mailbox, and hello to higher prices for internet access (and all forms of internet business), once the gTLDs go up for sale to the general public.

Of course, if you know how to get in on the .viagra domain first, you could make some quick cash for yourself - though afterwards you'll need to use all of it to handle your new deluge of spam. And if you think you can handle it by "just blocking all mail from .viagra", you are sorely mistaken.

Why so many .de domains? (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36084998)

>>>".Net is the third largest registry in existence (after .com and .de)"

Why? Germany has a lot of websites for some reason?

Re:Why so many .de domains? (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085106)

Well yeah, Germany is a rich country and supposedly has always had a love for gadgetry, so it makes perfect sense.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (4, Funny)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085154)

Why? Germany has a lot of websites for some reason?

Kinky porn and David Hasselhoff.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (0)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085392)

it puts the cheeseburger in its mouth

Re:Why so many .de domains? (5, Funny)

Zephyn (415698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085722)

it puts the cheeseburger in its mouth

ICANN has cheeseburger?

Re:Why so many .de domains? (-1, Offtopic)

Angostura (703910) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086008)

Oh, I wish I had mod points.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086530)

I'm with the other commenter- that was a perfect parlay of a joke, Fred.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085182)

Yes. For some reason it does. [verisigninc.com] [PDF]

Re:Why so many .de domains? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085864)

The German Wikipedia has the second most articles of the various language Wikipedias. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]

I have also read that German is second only to English in number of books published each year.

Pretty impressive when you consider only 3 countries with a total of a bit under 100 million people make up the traditional German language sphere.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086158)

Only 3? Do you suck at counting?
The following have German as an official language.
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Italy (South Tyrol)
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Liechtenstein

Even if we only count ohe ones were it is the only official language, we get 4.

There are 120 million Native speakers. Another 80 million non-native.

Re:Why so many .de domains? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085946)

Maybe because they are the largest economy in Europe?
They have a high median income and per capita. They also spend tons on gadgets. So yeah they have a lot of websites.

Why would you even want to deal with that? (2)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085030)

Nobody should even think about disabling a domain for trademark claims until or unless a court of law where the trademark was registered issued an order that effect or a finding that the domain was actually violating the trademark. One or even three people working for the TLD or ICANN aren't qualified to interpret and apply trademark law. Arbitrarily re-assigning domains is simply bad for business. Also if the domain is older than the trademark it would not be disabled from claims about that trademark.

Re:Why would you even want to deal with that? (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085084)

Indeed, it's insane. My old domain was a word trademarked by several different companies in several different countries; how could anyone other than a court decide whether it violated any of their trademarks and, if so, which one of them had the right to it?

Good Thing? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085148)

Saying stuff like "aid corporations" is baiting /. to hate, but it sounds like this will help thwart domain squatter/trolls, which /. is supposed to hate even more.

Re:Good Thing? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085202)

It's giving corporations a nuclear weapon to use on squatters and trolls, except there's no telling who the corporations will actually use it on.

Re:Good Thing? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085530)

Perhaps, but using nuclear weapons against squatters, trolls and spammers has some appeal to me, no matter who does it.

Re:Good Thing? (2)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085754)

Perhaps, but using nuclear weapons against squatters, trolls and spammers has some appeal to me, no matter who does it.

Say that after you find yourself in the house next to the squatter (or the city next to them, for that matter). If we give them a tool to use against "the bad guys" they will simply redefine who "the bad guys" are every time they want to use it. Or do you trust them not to abuse this power in pursuit of their corporate anti-consumer agendas? Have you been paying attention to Sony lately?

Time to start a new protection comapny (1)

subanark (937286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085298)

If this becomes widely enough known, I can see a company forming to provide legal protection against attacks of this kind. Register domain, have the company check your domain name against a list of trademarked names. If its not in the list they could offer you a $5 per year insurance plan which will actively protect your domain against any kind of takedown of this kind (so you are protected even if you go on vacation and miss the window to file a defense), if they can't protect your domain, then you get a payout for compensation.

Re:Time to start a new protection comapny (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085712)

"Hi there. Nice domain name. Pity if our Venezuelan Subsidiary might be infringing! However, if you pay us $5, we'll give you a nice Approved graphic that you can upload for a year!"

Sign of the times (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085806)

Our society and economy is so messed up as a waste production economy I can see this actually happening. You are spot on that entire industries will form because of this decision. While it "creates jobs" it's depressing. What ever happened to genuine production of value? I can't be the only one who thinks this tower of interdependent jobs is artificial and unsustainable... Artificial market.

What about squatters? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085312)

I think corporations are reasonably well protected already. But what about the average person who just wants to register a domain that is taken by a squatter, without having to go through the time and expense of obtaining a trademark?

Re:What about squatters? (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086944)

That's not squatting. And even if you applied for a trademark after the fact, (theoretically) it holds no water in the UDRP process.

Bottom line is if someone else registered the domain first, then you can either make him/her an offer to buy it, or pick another one. Similar to real estate, domain names are property and operate under the concept of capitalism.

Re:What about squatters? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#36087802)

That's not squatting.

What isn't squatting?

Similar to real estate, domain names are property and operate under the concept of capitalism.

Domain names are IP [wikipedia.org] not RP [wikipedia.org] . Economically speaking, it is very different from real estate. Real estate is finite, expensive, and owned permanently unless transferred. Domain names are infinite, cheap, and are only available for rent.

It seems like almost every English dictionary word is registered as a domain right now. Any domain that expires is immediately snatched up by squatters. This is an unfortunate problem.

And even if you applied for a trademark after the fact, (theoretically) it holds no water in the UDRP process.

The UDRP [wikipedia.org] process is almost exclusively based on trademarks. While I'm not aware of any specific cases, it seems unlikely that a trademark holder would be denied the right to a domain against a squatter who had no trademark at all.

.NET (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085322)

Microsoft should pay the $200 and seize the entire TLD.

Re:.NET (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085368)

Microsoft should pay the $200 and seize the entire TLD.

You have a point there...

Re:.NET (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36086784)

And there was I, thinking it had a dot, but it was a point all along.

I can haz a point net domain?

Honesty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085348)

So, ICANN's going from "uniform dispute resolution" to "uniform rapid suspension"? At least they're being honest, I guess.

ICANN must be canned. (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085350)

I'm getting really sick and tired of ICANN. They used to have good people who actually cared about the network like 15 years ago. Today all such members of this organization who matter have long since fled. Now it is just about policies to maximize profits at the expense of the network. I wouldn't be surprised if they felt like they needed to make this change to counter the ill effects of their insane TLD policy.

Re:ICANN must be canned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085802)

They used to have good people who actually cared about the network like 15 years ago.

Then Jon Postel died.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority:

In 1996 the "DNS Wars" began as the FNAC ordered the NSF to instruct its contractor, Network Solutions who ran the Internic project, to begin charging for com/net/org domain names. There was widespread dissatisfaction with this concentration of power (and money) in one company, and people looked to IANA for a solution. Postel wrote up a draft on IANA and the creation of new top level domains. He was trying to institutionalize IANA. In retrospect, this would have been valuable, since he unexpectedly died about two years later.

In January 1998, Postel was threatened by US Presidential science advisor Ira Magaziner with the statement "You'll never work on the Internet again" after Postel collaborated with root server operators to reduce Network Solutions' influence, which had undermined IANA's authority over the root zone. Regaining control of the root from Network Solutions would have clarified his authority to create new top-level domains as a step to resolving the DNS Wars, but he ended his effort after Magaziner's threat, and died not long after.

ICANN HAZ (2)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085550)

ICANN HAZ YOUR DOMAIN

ICANN HAZ +1 (1)

Maintenance Goof (1487053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085698)

Sums it up really.

Why (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36085646)

is there only one DNS? Why can't there be more than one? Why does it HAVE to go through ICANN?

ICANN2 (2)

Maintenance Goof (1487053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36085900)

This is pretty well silly. Trademark is common law, registered, international, national and just about every other sort of monkey court in existence. ICANN may be opening themselves up to some real silly nastiness. The sort of thing they will richly deserve if they go through with this.

Soooo. (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086150)

So, if you have a personal domain, get a trademark out on that domain before some bastard corp tries to take it off of you.

How much does a trade mark cost anyhow?

"Domain names"? (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086342)

Was that something that had significance back before people found their information through search engines and used URL shorteners to provide compact links to people? Did people actually type significant domain names into address bars? How quaint.

Send an email! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086440)

If you haven't sent an email to net-agreement-renewal(at)icann(dot)org, you are not doing your duty as netizens!

So send one, already!

Had a domain forcibly taken.. (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086484)

This will merely speed the process. I had a domain I was going to use as a sales site..I bought it and let it set for a while before doing the whole ecom thing. In the meanwhile, a company in a completely unrelated industry offered me some crumbs for the domain..I replied with what I thought was fair, then began receiving the lawyer letters, trademark litigation, and eventually had the domain ICANNed away. The bottom line is, unless you have the legal team, any domain you own can be taken away. Period.

Re:Had a domain forcibly taken.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36087330)

If it wasn't being pointed to any web server, I would guess that you then qualify as a squatter at that point - even if your intent was to legitimately use it eventually.

Arrr! We don't need no stinkin' DNS! (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36086542)

Screw it. Let's see them try to trademark a dotted quad, or an IPv6 unicast addy. Too much to memorize? Most of us can run our own damned domain server on our LAN, and bypass this ICANNdy assed scheme. Hell, I'll hard code stuff into my hosts file if I have to. Or use a third party DNS, preferably with non-ICANN tlds, that are stable and not liable to being boarded by cutlass wielding trademark lawyers. (Arrr!)

If they wreck it, we can fork DNS. We can even ignore it. The Internet, so long as it isn't redesigned to behave otherwise, will still carry the traffic. To date, it doesn't really use domain names.

ICANN has already lost most of its relevance via Google, which is what most people use, every time they want to go to a site. People don't even use bookmarks any more. Making the .net TLD unstable, and unusable, sounds like a great first step, for ICANN to walk the plank.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>