As irony would have it given recent discussions here about .union and
.sucks, our local county newspaper, the Marin Independent Journal, ran a
feature article today, "Online whines with a bitter aftertaste."
Dan Parisi , founder of Whitehouse.com (a porn site) has spent
approximately $100,000 to register the domain names
of more than 500 of the world's largest companies plus
the "sucks.com" suffix, a traditional Web addendum to
identify a site for complaints, as in
yourcompanysucks.com.
>From TWAsucks to Ciscosucks, MerrillLynchsucks and
GMsucks, he is sitting on perversions of some of the
most valuable brand names in the world. "I did a pretty
thorough job," he said. "I took everything I could get."
He even spent $5,000 to buy the "Microsoftsucks.com"
domain name from someone who had already
registered it.
The goal: To create a giant portal that will serve as a
clearinghouse for consumer and worker rants, raves
and indiscriminate corporate caterwauling.
Parisi even got personal. Problems with your Dell
computer? You'll be able to whine at
MichaelDellsucks.com. Feeling gouged by that e-Bay
auction? MegWhitmansucks.com will be the place for
you. Travelers, take note: from HongKongsucks.com to
Idahosucks.com, his portal will have a place for your
views.
The piece de resistance: Instead of the Fortune 500,
he plans to post the "Sucks 500."
-- more at: http://www.marinij.com/news/techbiz/index.html
Jamie Love wrote:
>I appreciate the comments by Paul Garin and Dr. Joe Baptista. With
>respect to the .union proposal, I believe at this point it is something
>that the labor unions will have to address. I've taken an interest in
>several non-commercial TLD proposals, including .union, in part to shape
>ICANN rules on new TLDs, and also to provide some information to union
>members on this issue. I just wanted to make it clear that at this
>point, CPT or Essential Information does not have plans to apply to
>ICANN for a .union registry, and we hope that the union community will
>do so on its own behalf, it not right now , in the not distant future.
>
> We are more likely to be involved in proposals for other civil
>society TLDs.
>
> Jamie
>
>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>> There's a few problems with the namespace roots which I'll spell out here.
>>
>> 1. Non of the namespace root servers provide for zone transfers of the
>> root. Therefore it is impossible to determine what tld space is in them.
>>
>> 2. Lack of co-operation - when John Hunt enumerated the namespace he
>> attempted on numerous occassions to confirm information with
>> namespace. Your people ignored him. Lack of co-operation in namespace is
>> a sure fire way to lose peoples interest.
>>
>> John Hunts work in archives at http://www.earth-net.net/GTLD/
>>
>> 3. According to John's notes - which are still maintained in my private
>> files, he contacted all of your tld contacts. these were the people you
>> solicited for namespace creation. Non of these people had been contacted
>> by you, no have they ever heard anything from namespace. Alot of them
>> feel used. Instead of keeping these resources you have ostrasized them.
>>
>> 4. When one attempts to check the soa on any namespace root server - one
>> get's the IANA soa. This is not a proper method of operating a root
>> file. If there are problems in the root it should return an soa which
>> identifies namespace as the authority - not iana.
>>
>> 5. The union people have already been advised by me that .union is in
>> conflict with your namespace root zone.
>>
>> 6. I suggest you give up .union to James - according to the hunt records
>> .union was created by one of your boys - so that would be an easy thing to
>> do:
>>
>> Top Level Domain: .union
>> Root Server Confederation: name.space
>> Status: Authoritative - Prior use
>> Uniform Resource Locator: http://namespace.pgmedia.net/
>> Whois Server: swhois.net
>> Contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> and in closing Paul - it would be the right thing to do. .union should be
>> run by the unions and not pgmedia/namespace. You should simply offer to
>> include them in your roots - and I think everyone else (i speak of the
>> alternate root servers) will also agree to support .union accordingly.
>>
>> You have 500 or more gtlds in your root - any your not making any money on
>> them - all you've spend money on is legal fees. So think paul - think
>> carefully - because your gesture can serve to break the icann monopoly.
>>
>> Regards
>> Joe baptista
>>
>> Regards
>> Joe Baptista
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Paul Garrin wrote:
>>
>> > The TLD "union." has been operational on Name.Space
>> > servers since 1996. We will be more than happy to
>> > work with James Love, the unions, etc. to service
>> > this TLD.
>> >
>> > Registrations can be done online at
>> > https://secure.name-space.com/registry
>> >
>> > New registrants may choose to register for the
>> > first year for free.
>> >
>> > (this is not an ad)
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Paul Garrin
>> > Name.Space
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I think James it's time for you to setup .union and have it listed with
>> > > the independent root servers. Get it working - get union people
>>using it
>> > > and viola - you might get icanns attention.
>> > >
>> > > regards
>> > > joe baptista
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Remember what I was telling you, Jamie, about the pointlessness of
>> > > > playing cards with people who use their own deck?
>> > > >
>> > > > Maybe the INTA, WIPO, and other IPC lawyers who run the DNSO will
>> > > > let you use .UNION if you agree that they can have all the SLDs they
>> > > > want off the top?
>> > > >
>> > > > > From: "Mark C. Langston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > > Subject: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant
>> > > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > In the teleconference just now, they decided:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 1) That WGs are not the voice of the community, and that
>>reports that
>> > > > > go to the ICANN BoD should reflect their constituencies
>>wishes instead
>> > > > > (several almost sotto voce comments were heard regarding the
>>fact that
>> > > > > "just anyone" can participate in the working groups, and the
>>results
>> > > > > should be discounted),
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2) That new gTLDs should be introduced (Yes: 14, No: 3 Abs:
>>0), but
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3) That it shouldn't be 6-10 (Yes: 5, No: 9, Abs: 2)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > They're probably going to act on WG-B's report next, and
>>wholeheartedly
>> > > > > support the Sunrise proposal, because all the "dissenters" were
>>those
>> > > > > unrepresented rabble who you find in open processes, and the voices
>> > > > > being heard couldn't possibly reflect the community.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Pat yourselves on the back, folks. We've just wasted a year of our
>> > > > > lives to have a group of lawyers decide that _THEY_ should be making
>> > > > > these decisions, and to hell with our work if they don't agree
>>with it.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > And just so you know, one of the staunchest and most vocal of those
>> > > > > speaking up regarding just tossing our results was the ever-present
>> > > > > Mr. Sheppard, of the Sheppard/Kleinman document, and co-NC liason to
>> > > > > WG-B.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > They've just aptly demonstrated that the working groups are
>>meaningless.
>> > > > > We could have had just as much influence if the NC itself came
>>up with
>> > > > > the report, and then opened it to public comment.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere
>> > > > > and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". Must be the
>> > > > > US$75k they're having to spend for a Secretariat, huh?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the
>> > > > > stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP
>>Constituency
>> > > > > and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle
>> > > > > around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to
>> > > > > operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting
>> > > > > mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics,
>> > > > > organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your
>>chances
>> > > > > of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery
>> > > > > for you are significantly smaller.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - --
>> > > > > Mark C. Langston
>> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > > Systems & Network Admin
>> > > > > San Jose, CA
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ============================================================
>> > > > Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
>> > > > Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
>> > > > ============================================================
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
>> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------
>> > Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net
>> > Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
>>
>
>=============================================
>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
>P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
>Washington, DC 20036 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176
>=============================================
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.
