In a further rant about the ICANN "Reserved Names" lists, Dr. Berryhill wants to know what they are smoking in Marina Del Rey...
>I do not have a problem with a company using tld.com for their
>own website. I do have a problem with a "registrar" offering 3rd
>level registrations under tld.com, especially if they tell you that
>this is the way the internet is structured,
Marcus, I do not disagree with the observation that there may be questionable practices. My only question is whether this is a basis for a categorical exclusion of classes of domain names from registration to anyone on a planet of 6.5 billion people, because an ICANN working group knows what's best. If the question comes down to whether there is a problem with whether one does X or does Y with a domain name, then the question is one step removed from whether everyone must therefore be prohibited from registering said domain name. Whether any particular domain name may be used abusively is a consideration that applies to all domain names.
"SexualPredators.tld", for an organization combating sexual predators, would probably pass the Marcus "problem" test. The same name, used as an online meeting place and resource directory for sexual predators, would probably not pass the Marcus "problem" test. My question is whether as a policy matter we need to prohibit registration of the domain name to anyone and everyone, on the ground that "someone" may do something "bad".
In the immediate context of the "Reserved Names" policy, there are substantial effects. Leaving aside the ccTLDs for a moment, the "Reserved Names" have traditionally included the initials of various ICANN constituent organizations.
For example, the strings "ASO" and "IAB" were prohibited from being registered in the 2000 round of new TLD's, e.g. .info, and are mindlessly propagated to each new TLD. Now, the following are US registered trademarks to various companies:
2517102 ASO
2542704 ASO
2654072 ASO/PARTNERS
2539256 ASO
2198279 ASO
2045578 ASO COUNTER NEWS
1619707 ASO
3203966 IAB
3156668 IAB
3102783 IAB
1401532 IAB
You cannot on the one hand say that you don't have a problem with companies registering their names and marks as domain names, and simultaneously support a policy which says, to the owners of these trademarks, "You will never be able to register your trademark as a domain name in a new TLD." But that is precisely what the Reserved Names Working Group is doing. Which is why I noted that one has to separate "potential for abuse" which is a use-based issue from "zero legitimate use" which is a reason for a flat-out exclusionary policy.
Do we care whether BIO2 International, Inc., the owner of US Reg. TM. No.2539256 for "ASO" in connection with "stabilized oxygen for use as a dietary supplement" is able to register their trademark as a domain name in some new TLD?
Do we care whether Internal Audit Bureau Inc., the owner of US TM Reg. No.3203966 for "IAB" in connection with financial services is able to someday register IAB.finance?
No, we don't, and they are not likely even aware of ICANN's existence, and certainly not aware that there is a working group that is in the process of forever banning them from registering a domain name.
If you want to get on the telephone with the CEO's of these companies (and there are quite a few among the various "reserved names" under consideration), and explain this situation to them, I'm sure they would have some choice words for this sort of policy nonsense. If you let me listen, I'll pay for the telephone calls.
The annual International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, which has been around for longer than the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, will NEVER be able to register "icann.event", solely due to the orgy of self-dealing which characterizes ICANN policy making. In a world in which the string "ICANN" is legitimately used by different parties, I guess it is fortunate to be the "ICANN" which can absolutely ban the other ICANN's from registering a domain name henceforth and forevermore. It is good to be king.
The absolute best and most effective way to prevent abuse of domain names is for us simply to declare a moratorium on registration of domain names. If people can't register them, they can't abuse them. As an added bonus, everyone on this list will then have more time to spend with their families. My sense is that this is just not the correct constituency to advance "more reasons why people shouldn't register domain names", which are so eloquently stated by those whose business does not relate to the registration of domain names. At the very least, the Reserved Names Working Group should find someone who can spell. Take a look at the .info reserved names here:
http://www.afilias.info/whois_search/reserved_names
It includes, and included the link because it is simply hard to believe, "bosnaihercegovina".
Now, I don't know where BosnAI is, but I have heard of a place called BosnIA. Surely enough, you cannot register bosnaihercegovina.info, because it was duly reserved by Afilias.
Did that stop a cybersquatter from registering bosnIAhercegovina.info? Nope. No doubt the Balkans will again lapse into several more generations of armed conflict as a consequence. So again, at the very least, when this policy is finally made, perhaps we might try to avoid putting illiterate nitwits in charge of implementing it.
The .in registry did the same thing:
http://www.inregistry.in/policies/IN_Reserved_Names-Feb2005.pdf
because the same stupid typographical error is being propagated through generations of Reserved Name lists.
Maybe the next time they inadvertently ban growers of miniature Japanese trees from registering domain names. But if someone figures out that "Cashmere" is merely an alternate spelling of "Kashmir", then we'll have to quit buying wool clothing on the internet under an appropriate domain name.
There is no end to how stupid this is, and there is a distinct Anglo-centrism to the country list. "Switzerland" is excluded in each of its four official languages, plus English because, well, you know, everyone *should* speak English after all. You can register "Switzerland" in any other language, though, while some countries only get to exclude their name in English. Absent an IDN system, for example, "Morocco" cannot be excluded in Arabic. So instead it is excluded in English, while the other dominant language version corresponding to what is actually spoken in that country - (i.e. "Maroc" in French) - is free for anyone to register in new TLDs.
To go from "dumb" to "dumber" - all of these English designations are excluded from the .cat TLD, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A TLD SPECIFIC TO A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH.
What DIDN'T they exclude from .cat? The names of these countries IN CATALAN. So, let me get this straight. You can't register "Switzerland" in .cat because (a) it is not a Catalan word, and (b) it is the name of a country that doesn't even call itself "Switzerland" in ANY of its official languages, but it is on a "magic list". You CAN, however, register "Suïssa" in .cat because (a) it IS a Catalan word, and (b) it is not on the "magic list", even though it is Catalan for "Switzerland".
Please, tell me where to find the medication required to think that policy makes sense. These types of drugs are not legal in the United States.
Sooner or later, some country is going to change its name to "Porn", and growth of the Internet will come to a dead stop. (And I wouldn't doubt that certain wild-carded ccTLD operators haven't thought about it. You know who you are.)
As Tim pointed out, this sort of thinking only leads to temporally-based irregularities, because successive rounds of new TLDs have to have different exclusions applied to them, instead of a consistent policy across the board. One can maintain info.com, but not com.info. Is there a useful purpose served by that? Another odd example is that "DNSO" is duly reserved by Neulevel in .biz, but not by Afilias in .info. Of course, the ICANN DNSO no longer exists, and the newer GNSO was already registered in .com, .net, and .org by a troublemaker before the ICANN GNSO was formed. Nonetheless, "DNSO" is still supposed to be excluded.
Techies are used to checking a theorem against limiting cases. The end point here, projecting forward, is that when the root zone is as large as the .com zone, it will be easy to obtain a new TLD, since there will not be any likelihood of populating it. (I believe the growth/exclusion condition here defines a logarithmic growth curve, but the point is that each new TLD has less utility by one domain name) It may not be the most realistic projection, but from a high-level perspective I just can't see us lining up to say, "I prefer monotonically decreasing limits on growth curves." But that's what this policy imposes as a limiting condition.
Some things do make sense. For example, the .eu registry reserved names list (http://www.eurid.eu/images/Documents/Blocked_names/1%20blocked.txt) thoughtfully included "1000-jaehriges-reich". Irrational policies made by unaccountable authorities do indeed have a limited life span.
Those of you who follow the activity (and recent inactivity) on this blog will know that I have been moving. 
. In it, Paul Twomey seems to pontificate about what the Internet is/does, broadcasting his "vision" for the benefit of the uninformed on Main Street (who likely have little clue about what ICANN does or how the Internet works). Reading this, I couldn't help but be struck that Paul has so insulated himself from the reality of the Internet that he's drwaing on a whisp of 'virtual reality' to describe the direction it's going.
Recent Comments