RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group: response needed

["John Berryhill" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>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 com.info, but not info.com.  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 logarithmic 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.