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@)."

Time to change the whole basis

[Skapare]

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:Awesome

[TheRaven64]

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

[HungryHobo]

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.