ICANN Wants To Change Rules For GTLDs

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@)."

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Awesome

[Catnaps]

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:We're doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Awesome

[mldi]

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:Time to change the whole basis

[x*yy*x]

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:Thinking of Contacting ICANN? Don't Bother...

[winkydink]

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:Awesome

[hoggoth]

> 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!

.NET

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Awesome

[donotlizard]

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

Re:Wow...

[bsDaemon]

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.

Re:We're doomed

[dakameleon]

The little guy was always fucked over. You're just hearing about it these days because they don't worry about hiding it.