[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
(Fwd) What's in a domain?
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:30:25 -0800
- From: "Rick H. Wesson" <wessorh@ar.com>
- Subject: (Fwd) What's in a domain?
--- Forwarded mail
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1997&month=01&day=19&article=BUSINESS15704.dtl
[ text/plain
Encoded with "quoted-printable" ] :
[TheSan Francisco Examiner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, Jan. 19, 1997 · Page D 1
©1997 San Francisco Examiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's in a domain?
Problems arise as web sites tangle with trademarks
Tom Abate
EXAMINER TECHNOLOGY WRITER
Toys 'R' Us officials went pale when they saw the "toys"
advertised on a World Wide Web site named Adults 'R' Us.
"They wanted me to get that Web site shut down," said Neil
Smith, a San Francisco attorney who represents Toys 'R' Us.
In September, Smith filed suit in federal court in San
Francisco, charging that by making inflatable dolls
available through the Adults 'R' Us web site, the San
Francisco company was undermining the wholesome image of his
client in New Jersey.
In October, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled the
reputation of Toys 'R' Us would be tarnished if the 'R' Us
appelation was used to "operat(e) an Internet site and
shopping service featuring a variety of sexual devices and
clothing." She ordered the Adults 'R' Us Web site shut down.
Although the 'R' Us case has been settled, it illustrates
how Internet domain names - familiarly the "companyname.com"
of www.companyname.com - have started to conflict with
trademarks registered under state, federal and foreign law.
On Monday, a little-known group of Internet experts and
attorneys will meet in Geneva to finalize a new Internet
name policy meant to minimize these conflicts.
In addition to solving the trademark problems, this
International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) must also deal with
resentment at home and abroad over the fact that one U.S.
firm, Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., has a monopoly
on issuing Internet domain names for commercial purposes
around the world.
Worldwide domain name registration is so brisk that Network
Solutions could collect $100 million in registration fees in
1997 alone.
To get a piece of this registration pie, several outfits
have threatened to set up unsanctioned name registries. But
that might subvert the Internet's traffic-handling system.
The IAHC proposals are supposed to head off this crisis,
too.
"There certainly has been a lot of interest in what has been
proposed," said Sally Abel, a Palo Alto trademark attorney
who is also an IAHC member.
To solve its twin problems of domain name competition and
trademark conflict, the IAHC has proposed the creation of
seven new classes of Internet addresses.
These new classes have not been named, but might include
www.yourname.ppl, for instance, to designate personal home
pages. These new categories would join the "com," "gov,"
"edu" and "org" designations that now identify commercial,
governmental, educational and nonprofit Internet users.
The IAHC proposal calls for a global lottery to choose 20 to
30 firms to get these valuable, new registration franchises.
Finally, the IAHC has proposed that all registries publish
proposed domain names, then give trademark holders 60 days
to object before the domain name gets posted on the
Internet.
"The 60-day waiting period seems to have been the most
controversial issue," said Sunnyvale engineer Dave Crocker,
who will join Abel at Monday's IAHC meeting.
It may be a year or more before ordinary users experience
any benefits - or inconveniences - arising from the IAHC
deliberations.
But the process reveals the hidden workings of the Internet,
which is still run by ad hoc rules devised over the last 25
years by the U.S. computer scientists who built the network
- rules that are being increasingly questioned today, as the
Internet becomes the world's hottest commercial artery.
"The naming authority of the Internet is not based on law or
government authority," Crocker said. "The Internet is
structured in ways we're not used to. Formal authorization
is less important than the fact that it works."
For most of its history, the authority to issue Internet
domain names has flowed from the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority. IANA boils down to a handful of researchers at
the Information Sciences Institute at the University of
Southern California.
Led by longtime Internet engineer Jon Postel, IANA oversees
the technical framework for Internet names. Actual
registration, however, has always been performed by
nonprofit firms paid under a succession of government
contracts.
During the 1980s and early '90s, Internet growth was driven
by the National Science Foundation, which gave colleges
money to join the fledgling Internet.
Since the NSF was subsidizing the creation of new Internet
addresses, it awarded the registration contract. In April
1993, NSF made a five-year deal with the Virgina consulting
firm, Network Solutions Inc.
Although no one could have foreseen it, the invention of the
Mosaic browser that year created an easy way to navigate the
Internet, attracting millions of new users and sparking a
rush of start-ups seeking to stake claims to Internet names.
The importance of names
Chicago attorney and IAHC member David Maher recalled his
introduction to the importance of Internet names. It came
while reading a Wired magazine article in 1994. The author
had registered "McDonald's.com" as an Internet domain name
to dramatize how corporations were ignoring this new medium.
Maher, who represented the burger franchise on trademark
issues, said the author gladly relinquished use of the
domain name, but the incident put companies on notice that
trademarks were up for grabs on the Internet.
"Only one party in the whole world can use a given word as
an address," Maher said. "Extortionists were trying to grab
names and sell them to trademark owners."
By 1995, the Internet's new popularity had created another
problem with name registration. NSF, which supports
scientific research, had no reason to subsidize millions of
Internet newcomers who had commercial goals. So in September
1995, NSF modified its contract so Network Solutions (NSI)
could collect a $100 fee from anyone who sought a commercial
Internet domain name.
NSI manager David Graves said NSF insisted that 30 percent
of the registration fee be set aside for "betterment and
development" of the Internet.
Graves said more than $10 million is already sitting in a
bank account, waiting for NSF to decide how to spend the
money. But so far none has been disbursed.
Meanwhile, Internet insiders grumbled. When NSF subsidized
Internet domain registration, few complained that NSI issued
virtually all the names on the Net. Once NSI began charging,
however, people calculated that with 80,000 new names being
requested each month, NSI's registration monopoly was worth
millions.
"There are a lot of people forming registries because they
smell dollars," said Chris Ambler, a 30-year-old
entrepreneur in San Luis Obispo.
Ambler is one of several people here and abroad poised to
register commercial domains using some designation like
"web" or "biz" instead of "com." But they need approval from
the engineering standards bodies that have always controlled
this naming function.
Last fall, members of these engineering bodies got together
with key legal experts to create the International Ad Hoc
Committee.
Questions to be answered
Now, as this ad hoc process comes to a close in Geneva,
those unhappy with the proposed policies are asking
questions: Who appointed the engineers who have always run
the Internet's naming apparatus? And isn't it restraint of
trade if current practices give NSI a global monopoly while
shutting others out of the business of issuing Internet
names?
"The IAHC says they have no power to mandate what NSI does"
because NSI's contract was issued by the NSF, Ambler said.
"So why can they tell my company what to do?"
So what is really at stake when the IAHC meets in Geneva is
the Internet's informal system of governance. The IAHC
members include top Internet engineers and representatives
from worldwide professional bodies that deal with
trademarks.
But they have no legal authority under U.S. or international
law. Their only power - though considerable - comes because
thousands of network engineers around the world have
generally followed the decisions arrived at through the
informal Internet processes.
"The essence of the Internet is that the users decide,"
Crocker said. "I think the IAHC will come up with a good
policy, but the Internet community is free to adopt it or
not."
---End of forwarded mail
--
Rick H. Wesson
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1997&month=01&day=19&article=BUSINESS15704.dtl
--
Rick H. Wesson
[TheSan Francisco Examiner]
Main News Sports Business Style Commentary Examiner Home The Gate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, Jan. 19, 1997 · Page D 1
©1997 San Francisco Examiner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Pacific Bell's At Hand Homefinder]
What's in a domain?
Problems arise as web sites tangle with trademarks
Tom Abate
EXAMINER TECHNOLOGY WRITER
Toys 'R' Us officials went pale when they saw the "toys"
advertised on a World Wide Web site named Adults 'R' Us.
"They wanted me to get that Web site shut down," said Neil
Smith, a San Francisco attorney who represents Toys 'R' Us.
In September, Smith filed suit in federal court in San
Francisco, charging that by making inflatable dolls
available through the Adults 'R' Us web site, the San
Francisco company was undermining the wholesome image of his
client in New Jersey.
In October, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled the
reputation of Toys 'R' Us would be tarnished if the 'R' Us
appelation was used to "operat(e) an Internet site and
shopping service featuring a variety of sexual devices and
clothing." She ordered the Adults 'R' Us Web site shut down.
Although the 'R' Us case has been settled, it illustrates
how Internet domain names - familiarly the "companyname.com"
of www.companyname.com - have started to conflict with
trademarks registered under state, federal and foreign law.
On Monday, a little-known group of Internet experts and
attorneys will meet in Geneva to finalize a new Internet
name policy meant to minimize these conflicts.
In addition to solving the trademark problems, this
International Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) must also deal with
resentment at home and abroad over the fact that one U.S.
firm, Network Solutions Inc. of Reston, Va., has a monopoly
on issuing Internet domain names for commercial purposes
around the world.
Worldwide domain name registration is so brisk that Network
Solutions could collect $100 million in registration fees in
1997 alone.
To get a piece of this registration pie, several outfits
have threatened to set up unsanctioned name registries. But
that might subvert the Internet's traffic-handling system.
The IAHC proposals are supposed to head off this crisis,
too.
"There certainly has been a lot of interest in what has been
proposed," said Sally Abel, a Palo Alto trademark attorney
who is also an IAHC member.
To solve its twin problems of domain name competition and
trademark conflict, the IAHC has proposed the creation of
seven new classes of Internet addresses.
These new classes have not been named, but might include
www.yourname.ppl, for instance, to designate personal home
pages. These new categories would join the "com," "gov,"
"edu" and "org" designations that now identify commercial,
governmental, educational and nonprofit Internet users.
The IAHC proposal calls for a global lottery to choose 20 to
30 firms to get these valuable, new registration franchises.
Finally, the IAHC has proposed that all registries publish
proposed domain names, then give trademark holders 60 days
to object before the domain name gets posted on the
Internet.
"The 60-day waiting period seems to have been the most
controversial issue," said Sunnyvale engineer Dave Crocker,
who will join Abel at Monday's IAHC meeting.
It may be a year or more before ordinary users experience
any benefits - or inconveniences - arising from the IAHC
deliberations.
But the process reveals the hidden workings of the Internet,
which is still run by ad hoc rules devised over the last 25
years by the U.S. computer scientists who built the network
- rules that are being increasingly questioned today, as the
Internet becomes the world's hottest commercial artery.
"The naming authority of the Internet is not based on law or
government authority," Crocker said. "The Internet is
structured in ways we're not used to. Formal authorization
is less important than the fact that it works."
For most of its history, the authority to issue Internet
domain names has flowed from the Internet Assigned Numbers
Authority. IANA boils down to a handful of researchers at
the Information Sciences Institute at the University of
Southern California.
Led by longtime Internet engineer Jon Postel, IANA oversees
the technical framework for Internet names. Actual
registration, however, has always been performed by
nonprofit firms paid under a succession of government
contracts.
During the 1980s and early '90s, Internet growth was driven
by the National Science Foundation, which gave colleges
money to join the fledgling Internet.
Since the NSF was subsidizing the creation of new Internet
addresses, it awarded the registration contract. In April
1993, NSF made a five-year deal with the Virgina consulting
firm, Network Solutions Inc.
Although no one could have foreseen it, the invention of the
Mosaic browser that year created an easy way to navigate the
Internet, attracting millions of new users and sparking a
rush of start-ups seeking to stake claims to Internet names.
The importance of names
Chicago attorney and IAHC member David Maher recalled his
introduction to the importance of Internet names. It came
while reading a Wired magazine article in 1994. The author
had registered "McDonald's.com" as an Internet domain name
to dramatize how corporations were ignoring this new medium.
Maher, who represented the burger franchise on trademark
issues, said the author gladly relinquished use of the
domain name, but the incident put companies on notice that
trademarks were up for grabs on the Internet.
"Only one party in the whole world can use a given word as
an address," Maher said. "Extortionists were trying to grab
names and sell them to trademark owners."
By 1995, the Internet's new popularity had created another
problem with name registration. NSF, which supports
scientific research, had no reason to subsidize millions of
Internet newcomers who had commercial goals. So in September
1995, NSF modified its contract so Network Solutions (NSI)
could collect a $100 fee from anyone who sought a commercial
Internet domain name.
NSI manager David Graves said NSF insisted that 30 percent
of the registration fee be set aside for "betterment and
development" of the Internet.
Graves said more than $10 million is already sitting in a
bank account, waiting for NSF to decide how to spend the
money. But so far none has been disbursed.
Meanwhile, Internet insiders grumbled. When NSF subsidized
Internet domain registration, few complained that NSI issued
virtually all the names on the Net. Once NSI began charging,
however, people calculated that with 80,000 new names being
requested each month, NSI's registration monopoly was worth
millions.
"There are a lot of people forming registries because they
smell dollars," said Chris Ambler, a 30-year-old
entrepreneur in San Luis Obispo.
Ambler is one of several people here and abroad poised to
register commercial domains using some designation like
"web" or "biz" instead of "com." But they need approval from
the engineering standards bodies that have always controlled
this naming function.
Last fall, members of these engineering bodies got together
with key legal experts to create the International Ad Hoc
Committee.
Questions to be answered
Now, as this ad hoc process comes to a close in Geneva,
those unhappy with the proposed policies are asking
questions: Who appointed the engineers who have always run
the Internet's naming apparatus? And isn't it restraint of
trade if current practices give NSI a global monopoly while
shutting others out of the business of issuing Internet
names?
"The IAHC says they have no power to mandate what NSI does"
because NSI's contract was issued by the NSF, Ambler said.
"So why can they tell my company what to do?"
So what is really at stake when the IAHC meets in Geneva is
the Internet's informal system of governance. The IAHC
members include top Internet engineers and representatives
from worldwide professional bodies that deal with
trademarks.
But they have no legal authority under U.S. or international
law. Their only power - though considerable - comes because
thousands of network engineers around the world have
generally followed the decisions arrived at through the
informal Internet processes.
"The essence of the Internet is that the users decide,"
Crocker said. "I think the IAHC will come up with a good
policy, but the Internet community is free to adopt it or
not."
Sunday Magazine Travel Real Estate Epicure Habitat Search Feedback