The issue of and domain disputes

by Kurt Pritz on August 4, 2009

In the past few days, we have been receiving a large number of emails and phonecalls about the web address, and a dispute over its ownership.

Because we coordinate the domain name system, ICANN is sometimes wrongly seen as the ultimate authority over anything that happens with the domain name system. The reality is quite different, so this blog post explains ICANN’s role and relates that to this particular issue.

While ICANN does ultimately set the rules by which domain names are registered, it does not possess the power to overturn decisions that are made within the rules. Why? Because ICANN, through its bottom-up policy development, seeks to provide distributed, independent decision making that is placed in the hands most suited toward making these sorts of decisions.

A system for domain disputes

One of the first things that ICANN did shortly after it was created in 1998 was introduce an independent system for deciding on domain name disputes. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Process, known as UDRP, was developed by a wide group of individuals representing a broad cross-section of different interests.

The idea was to create a faster and less expensive alternative to the courts to make decisions about who had ownership rights over a particular domain.

The UDRP allows anyone with a trademark to go to one of four approved UDRP independent arbitrators and request that they review whether a domain infringes their rights. If you want more information, please go to:, or Wikipedia’s article on UDRP, but broadly: the UDRP looks at three main issues when it decides if a domain is infringing someone else’s rights and so should be handed over to that person.

They are:

  • Whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark
  • Whether the registrant has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain
  • Whether the domain is being used in “bad faith”

Since the UDRP was first introduced, nearly 30,000 cases have been successfully arbitrated.

What happened in the case?

In this case, Google went to one of the approved arbitration bodies and asked for the domain to be looked at for trademark infringement.

Google has a trademark in “YouTube”, the very well-known video site, and it argued that the current registrant did not have rights in the name and that it was using the site in “bad faith” – which is a legal term interpreted by the arbiter, but in this case might mean using the site to attract visitors by appearing to associate yourself with someone else.

When the NAF received the complaint, it sent a copy to the registrant of (actually to all three contacts for the domain: technical, administrative and billing) by email, by post and by fax, and asked them to respond to Google’s claims.


No one responded to those requests and that meant no-one defended the case, so the process went forward without them. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) chose an arbitrator to look at the complaint and he, considering the three tests, decided in favor of Google. The arbitrator then directed the registrar of the domain (GoDaddy) to transfer the domain to Google within 10 days of the decision – which means by 5 August 2009: tomorrow.

You can read the NAF’s full decision and explanation at

Why did the NAF decide for Google and against the current registrant of

According to the decision, the arbitrator found that the domain has been registered, and was being used to trade off YouTube’s name.

Here’s an excerpt from the decision’s “findings” section: “Respondent registered the domain name on January 27, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent allows users to upload and view videos and information about the Islamic faith. The disputed domain name’s resolving website copies the look and feel of Complainant’s website, including the use of tabs for different parts of its website such as “Home”, “Channels”, and “Community”, which are identical to those on Complainant’s domain name and resolving website.”

Back to ICANN

So what has this to do with ICANN? For a day-to-day standpoint, very little. ICANN has no role or influence in these proceedings. While ICANN as a community organization did develop the UDRP rules, and while it also has contracts with both the registry (dot-com) and the registrar (GoDaddy), the whole process happened entirely within the rules and so ICANN plays no part in any particular case such as this.

As explained earlier, ICANN doesn’t resolve disputes. The registrar acted in accordance with their contract with ICANN, and the arbitration system worked according to the process as defined.

The decision was not a reflection on the website content. It was purely based on the issue of trademark infringement where Google possesses rights in the YouTube brand.

We can understand why those concerned about the decision may wish to approach ICANN and ask the organization to intervene. Hopefully this post makes it clear why that is not only possible but also why ICANN would not wish to get involved even if it was able: because none of the rules have been broken.

Can the decision be appealed?

If the current registrant of wishes to contest the decision, it is able to file a lawsuit against it and request that any transfer be stopped until the court process is decided. Ultimately, it is the courts that can decide ownership rights.


Stand4Justice 08.04.09 at 5:13 pm

All of this is well and understood. The concern is WHAT WILL THE SITE BE USED FOR AND WHO WILL IT BE RUN BY?
How is it that it’s ALLOWED for Google to write such hateful comments like
“Give Muslims Long Awaited Videos And Ads, Enjoy
* Music Videos * Dating Videos * Dirty Jokes,
Google Is Taking Over this Website on Aug. 5th 2009
(And Nothing Can Stop Us – Just in Time for Ramadan)”

They’re writing as if they’re trying to induce anger on purpose.
WHO WROTE THIS? Was it Google? How are they allowed to write this? Google is a HUGE COMPANY. How could they be allowed to declare such open hate?

Adib 08.04.09 at 8:50 pm

Thanks for taking the time to write the long post and informing us about the recent decisions made by NAF. Now I’m utterly dissapointed with Google and have lost respect for them.

Zeeshan 08.04.09 at 9:00 pm

This is very bad on the part of google to take the website. Just for the save of getting money from advertisement , you cannot stop a site which has been running for over 3 years without any dispute. Now is fear that the website may be used by google to post unislamic and vulgar videos and fool the user

Barjesh 08.04.09 at 9:17 pm

Now i am getting the intention of google in acquiring the noble site which is a pure site and free from vulgar videos . While contains tons of those porns and vulgar things on it. They were not able to disgest the pure and non-profit site, so they acquired it forcefully.

Pasha 08.04.09 at 11:05 pm

Ok. Here are few questions for the minds that can think –
Whose actions are in “Bad Faith”

1. No sane person in the world would consider the contents of to be in “bad faith”.
2. And how can google be allowed to publish such hateful statements against a particular religion? Now, ask the question to yourself, whose actions are in “bad faith” now? Google or YoutubeIslam?
3. In any profit/loss logic, when there is a loss on one side, there would be a profit on the other end, to balance the equation. So, what has google lost, because of the so called “confusing Domain name” and what has the owners gained?
4. Even if someone develops a visual comparison tool to compare and contrast web pages, no fool will say that the site look similar.
–> The entire aesthetics of both the sites are different.
–> The colors, the fonts, the alignment of different web parts etc.
–> Even the logo had been re arranged to make sure it does not
show the words “you tube” on first look.
Google cannot claim copy rights over english language. Any video sharing site will have –
a) a community/user group
b) ability to upload videos
c) Channels
d) an obvious “Home” page tab to redirect lost people back home.
You can use any terms to achieve above and no one should have any reservations or objections.
5. In any arbitration of any sort, it should have representatives from both the parties before any judgement is taken. But in this case, it has been a one sided affair, which is unjust.
6. Finally, this site has been functioning for almost 3 years now. Why should google suddenly feel the pain now, which was not there for so long, that too before the commencement the month of mercy and blessings “Ramadan” .

Can the authorities of NAF or ICANN take time to respond to my concerns?


Kashif Sami 08.05.09 at 2:20 am


When began a couple of years back, they advertised on Google (probably through Google AdWords) and Google comfortably profited from those ads. Now, after 3 years in operation it has suddenly woken up! Why? Lots of good reasons, none of them good, its all in bad faith.

Further, the way Google approached this whole issue is reprehensible. Shaykh Yusuf Estes, the owner of, claims that Google threatened them when he refused to simply hand over the domain (website worth over $1 million). They had earlier claimed copyright violations but eventually resorted to intimidation and then the arbitration. Their copyright claim is just opportunist and false!

I’ve lost respect for Google. If this is how Google continues to function, it will go down… it surely will, God Willing!

الصادق 08.05.09 at 3:02 am

If Youtube is registered mark for Google that is not me owner any domain contained the word Youtube except what Google pay for so its not fair that Google prevent any one from register domain contain “Youtube” because 1.Google did not registered the domain first but the owner does. 2.Google did not pay for the domains contains “Youtube”
so Google has not the right to prevent people from being the owner of any domain contains “Youtube”.
According to some legal issues in some countries maybe Google have the right to prevent people from use her registered mark “Youtube”
but that is if the websites used in the website it self but not in domain and Google has not the right to prevent people from registered new marks like “YouTubeIslam” as one complete mark.
Please think about this.

Adam S 08.05.09 at 3:26 am

Let’s look at this the other way around. If a group of people set up an organisation named “Islam” and that organisation offered goods or services that were outside of conventional Muslim practice, many Muslims would be disappointed, saddened, even angry. And rightfully so.

As in this case, Google has a specific (commercial) purpose in mind with its website YouTube. Google has legally registered rights in the name of its video website. If anyone else adopts the term in full or part and uses it for something different, it is fair and right for Google to move to stop it. In legal terms, the third party acted in “bad faith” by stepping on Google’s rights; even if the third party’s website is perfectly upright in content, it acted illegitimately by using another party’s trademark terms.

As explained eloquently by Kurt in the above posting, ICANN is not involved in this dispute. The UDRP is independent and unbiased on its own terms in that its mission is to stamp out blatant cybersquatting and domain name abuse.

To respond to Pasha’s comments:

1. It is not the “contents” of that are said to be in “bad faith”, but rather that the third-party use of the term ‘youtube’ in the absence of an official association with Google was wrong. The third party acted in bad faith.
2. No response.
3. If went unchallenged, that website would gain users, traffic and reputation by being associated with YouTube in that because of the well-known status of the YouTube brand, users will understand the services offered by and use that website instead of YouTube. This shows exactly what gains and what Google loses.
4. In my opinion (and obviously the opinion of the arbitration panellist(s)), there is a clear link between the design and function of the third-party’s website and
5. In my opinion, the fact that did not respond to the UDRP filing indicates guilt, that the website’s managers understood they had breached the laws governing domain name registrations. This is how the UDRP works (as suggested by the community of net users that were involved in setting it up 10 years ago).
6. No response.

Abdellatif 08.05.09 at 5:44 am

dear we want back or we will boycott all of you
thanks for understanding

Andrew Allemann 08.05.09 at 6:08 am


Nice blog post, although I’m disappointed that you left out a key component of the third item: it must be registered AND used in bad faith, not just used in bad faith. It probably doesn’t apply to this case, but it’s a very important part of UDRP that some complainants ignore.

Sami 08.05.09 at 7:38 am

My only question is, how come ICANN gave the rights of the name “YouTube”.. when it clearly had the word ‘TUBE” in it, and has actualy caused lots of damage to the site called “UTUBE” and they owned that domain 10 years before.. and guess who lost the case?? Nopes it’s not YouTube.. like in the case of YouTubeIslam now.. it’s UTUBE.. (The Original Site)…

Whenever there’s money involved, there’s hypocrisy

Morsy 08.05.09 at 8:29 am

It is very clear that the whole issue is about Islam. None would have bothered if the website was named “”. Now the approriate action that I -and many others- had to take is to stop using google services as much as we can.

Osman Mustafa 08.05.09 at 9:48 am

I would request you to research on the website

It only shows Peace, Unity, & Happiness

Why is google attacking the website which shows peace..

It clearly shows the bad intention of Google..

Marwan 08.05.09 at 1:33 pm

There are thousands of domain names that contains the word “Youtube” and “Google” so why did Google complained only about this one.
I will close all my account from Google

Med 08.05.09 at 4:03 pm

In other words, I can’t register any domain name that contain the word “youtube”, in the future?
-> youtube(put here a word/s).com or (put here a word/s) are all prohibited? this is the logic of ICANN?

Now, if some one register the name “mail”, that mean it can “steal” any domain which contain that word? (Eg:

Mr Ahmed 08.05.09 at 5:40 pm


I cant believe some of the comments im reading here
War against Muslim and Islam on some sites i been reading – seriously get a reality check and get real

It has nothing to do with Islam, Ramadhan Approaching and what not

Trademark issue end of Story

If i owned youtube and someone decided to register a name similar to that id be pretty hacked off since people may things its afflilated with me same with if i had a company name etc wouldn’t you?

There are millions of domains being registered per day and if you want to register a domain name only takes 2 minutes no one sits there and monitors every single domain being registered only if its flagged up then action maybe taken so i can go ahead right now and register for example and I can get the site up within 5 minutes and no one will bat an eyelid until someone reports me or something!

Also can someone explain how the site is worth $1 million dollars? or has it just been evaluated from some freebie appraisal Site?

Seriously Get Real and stop complaining Im a Muslim and I own my own Domain hosting company so i know the system inside out!

Google Will Acquire the Domain NAME BUT WILL NOT REDIRECT IT so will eventually just lead to nothing!- thats how the system work go do your homework

Honesty 08.06.09 at 1:24 am

Since google is a very big company , it can do anything since it has power and money.

How can they get , although was already present.
It it were the way around and google would have the domain they would have bullied in the same way and would not have allowed anyone to have domain

Sarfraz 08.06.09 at 8:59 am


To respond to Ahmed’s comments:
google biggest search engine and they dont know there are sites containing word youtube; please do google and you will find list of them

Q. Also can someone explain how the site is worth $1 million dollars –
A. site is priceless; don’t limit your thinking to business please think beyound

Q. Google Will Acquire the Domain NAME BUT WILL NOT REDIRECT IT so will eventually just lead to nothing
A. you can’t stop google from taking over a site they have no right and you think they will not use it; its like you buy a car and let it rust in your garage.

Ali 08.06.09 at 5:16 pm

I thought about it in different angles and came to this conclusion that the base of this problem is selection of wrong name and question arises that why YOUTUBE was selected in the beginning (wasn’t it a try to take benefit of YOUTUBE) however I know many other sites which are streaming Islamic videos (even on youtube as well) are as successful as YOUTUBEISLAM.COM was.
Alhumdulliah I am a Muslim but I feel sorry to say that this mistake is done at our end, but we have to learn from our mistakes and make it sure that whenever we do something, should be a fresh start and we should be innovative, otherwise it will happen.
Advantage of this event is that many people I know didn’t know about this site are now aware of new site i.e
Don’t think emotionally but realistically, you even don’t like if someone from your family name his/her child as your’s child.
This is what I think.
Your thoughts.

Hassan 08.06.09 at 6:29 pm

I was also hit by surprise when I found out that is gone. Knowing that I watch videos on this website on regular basis, I even had links in my website from
I was also caught in it because of the state of my mind, as being an admirer of Sheikh Yusuf Estes and and on top of being a Muslim.
Our religion Islam doesn’t only provide just judicial Rules and Regulations but, it also defines Ethical and Moral boundaries as well.
I have noticed mostly people over here are indeed expressing themselves in the light of their emotions and focusing on Judicial Laws and trying to justify the acquisition of by Google as invalid, e.g. is a unique domain name. Why are we not using our reason and perception to decide between what is right and what is wrong, instead of putting all of our focus on what is legal and what is not.
I also want to stay there too, but shouldn’t we try to give dominance to our reason over our desires?
The biggest reason of all this happening is:
“No one responded to those requests and that meant no-one defended the case, so the process went forward without them. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) chose an arbitrator to look at the complaint and he, considering the three tests, decided in favor of Google. The arbitrator then directed the registrar of the domain (GoDaddy) to transfer the domain to Google within 10 days of the decision…”
If you guys think that Google is going anti Islamic, go and search Islamic websites in Google, see if you cannot find any Islamic website through Google (as long website is a month or two old, because Google crawler takes time to index sites). In fact if you do a little bit of research you will see Google has banned some of anti-Islamic websites on request from Muslim.
I have some 17 to 18 domain names registered, all of them unique in their context and sense and spellings. When I think of a domain, I don’t try to mix and match my ideas with some major website, because I like uniqueness and if any of my website or application becomes as strong as Google, I am not going to let anybody come close to my domain names because that will pose threat to the traffic on my website. E.g. Microsoft didn’t allow some developer to call his program “Windows Commander”, unique name right? But has windows in it. That’s how business world works.
I will end by saying; the sign of a strong Muslim is that, his reason dominates his desires. Argue objectively please, rather than complaining about Google actions, if you liked then please promote I will be doing it Inshallah by putting a note on my website about the domain name change.

safaa 08.07.09 at 1:09 pm

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته

موقع GOOGLE يحاول الاستيلاء على موقع

هوموقع متخصص ي تقديم مقاطع فيديو إسلامية باللغة الإنجليزية ، وصاحب هذا الموقع هو الشيخ

يوسف أستس الأمريكي المشهور بدعوته للإسلام، وموقع يوتويب إسلام مثير ومدهش بالمواد الإسلامية.

القصة التي طرأت على الموقع هي بأنهم يواجهون مشكلة مع شركة جوجل حسب كلامهم بسبب الدومين والذي تحاول جوجل أن تستولي عليه لعرض مقاطعها الرديئة حسب قول صاحب الموقع، وكما نعلم أن جوجل من أكبر الشركات في مجال الإنترنت وقد تقوم بعمل أي شي لمصلحتها الخاصة.

وبمبادرة من إدارة الموقع قاموا وبسرعة بعرض معلومات هذه المشكلة لكي ينتقل الزائر إلى دومين جديد باسم بدلاً، ولكنهم مستائين من ضغوطات جوجل.

وبحسب ما ذكرت إدارة الموقع فأنه سيتم تحويل الدومين إلى أحد صفحات يوتيوب التي لا ترضي المسلمين.

ستجد أن موقع يوجد فيه بعض تفاصيل هذا الموضوع مع رابط لمقطع في موقعهم الجديد بعنوان Google is trying to steal
على كل مسلم غيور ان يصلي للشيخ يوسف و قضيته ضد كوكل و محاولته توقيف المسلمين في امريكا و توقيف نشر الاسلام تنشر هذه الرساله دعما لدينك اذا احببت ذاللك

و من الله التوفقيق

Imran 08.08.09 at 6:08 am

Finally, everything against Islam. There hundreds of sites which is identical to youtube design structure. Including porn sites. Then whats the point of claiming the website design structure. Are they have specific design copyrights. If they do have such, they have to undertake all the sites available in the internet. has the same structure.

ISLAM, is the problem there. Now, they take every measures defend Islam. But, you cannot STOP tolerance towards Islam. In other words since this issue became major, now there is acceleration as well.

Allahu Akbar…..

IDRIS 08.08.09 at 7:00 am





Hassan 08.08.09 at 2:58 pm

In Response to Imran:
“There hundreds of sites which is identical to youtube design structure. Including porn sites.”
You know why, because if you type “Youtube” in google, check the ranking of That will be the answer to your question. This is the only domain which is not the part of google, showing up in first page at Rank 4, even till today. I make my living on website business. I think, you guys are just getting emotional here.
Read my earlier comment, that will make picture even more clear.

Joe J 08.08.09 at 3:12 pm

Oh waaa! waaaa!
Any ruling by any governing body against anything muslim is immediatly viewed by muslims as “an attack on muslims and islam”.
Get over yourselves. Whiners.

Sami 08.08.09 at 5:07 pm


The name is not really important.. what’s important is those who gets guided to Islam, so if you’re stuck in the “name” defending issue, then i think you are missing the bigger point here. and you are falling in what you are accusing other people of.. (being emotional too)..

Focus your attention on Tawheed, and you’ll understand why sheikh Yusuf has created this entire theme of awareness..

If you still dont’ get the point, please let me know and i’ll be happy to explain.

Drew 08.08.09 at 5:30 pm

It appears that many of the people that have left comments did not read the post. Note the following:

“When the NAF received the complaint, it sent a copy to the registrant of (actually to all three contacts for the domain: technical, administrative and billing) by email, by post and by fax, and asked them to respond […] [b]No one responded[/b] to those requests and that meant no-one defended the case, so the process went forward without them.” [emphasis added]

Simply put, this means that the administrators of are at fault for not defending the domain. When they failed to respond, they effectively gave up the domain name. You are complaining as if had protected their domain, but they didn’t; as a result they are responsible for the outcome.

Faulting religious discrimination is disingenuous and misleading.

Kashif Sami 08.09.09 at 1:35 pm


“If you still dont’ get the point, please let me know and i’ll be happy to explain.”

Pls go ahead with your explanation, I’d like to learn more about this “awareness” and how tawheed would relate to this issue.

Ali 08.10.09 at 5:44 am

My Brothers,
I am feeling that we all are trying to convince each other, and everyone has his own logic, that is a very positive point and I am happy that our young Muslims are still live. It gives me pain when I see my two brothers do argument on one point and it definatly make negative impact, not today but some time in future this negative feeling will show up in our lives in diffrent dimention.
I respect everyone’s point of view but my question is that did anyone do Istikhara about this issue and I am sure if some one did, then he should share his message (keep in mind if you will mention something wrong that means you will be directly answerable to Allah).
Please do istikhara and then add your comments here, otherwise don’t make this blog a joke for Islam enemies.

Wama Alina wa illal bala.


gufran 08.11.09 at 12:52 am

Hassan. First page, ranked 4 is not youtubeislam. Factcheck needed. Perhaps you don’t fully understand how Ranking works. Don’t worry I don’t either. But it’s safe to say, any reason for youtubeislam to get ranked this high is simply because of this ongoing case. Even then, on the 4th of this month it was ranked at the bottom of page 1.
Goofle may care less about Islam, and I believe this issue is MOSTLY business. But I don’t think the people behind the decisions are simply “godless” individuals who are perfectly capable of isolating the whispers of ïblis”in them. How many in Google thought about engaging with one of their biggest customers before pulling the plug. And I mean the end user, the viewers who visit the site everyday. It’s ridiculous to suggest Google genuinely cares about its visitors on this issue. There is no doubt that this concerted effort came to pass without ANY sincerity on part of Goofle. We will have to move on in any case

shahid 08.12.09 at 9:16 pm

This is STUPID what google is doing. I am against it for taking down that site! FROM now i hate google and will spread the message!

Tommy 08.19.09 at 11:15 am

Google is really using its touch. Yep, for past few weeks I began searching more with bing cause it got way better than google. But yes, sometimes i like to be faithful to google. Not anymore!

D 08.22.09 at 11:46 pm

Well Google is protecting their trademark against dillution, especially with such hige traffic site it was huge problem. BUT they could have handled it more sensitively – i.e. for couple of month put some link to the new site.

Bilal 08.24.09 at 5:00 pm

Nothing new here. Google always ranked anti Islamic sites on top. If you know who are the owners of google you will understand why.

The internet was the only media left to show real teachings of Islam instead of all those mumbo jumbo media moguls and missionaries are putting out there.
Now all the big social sites are bought by same people who own the conventional media (eg fox).
Ofcourse they couldn’t buy youtubeislam cuz the owners weren’t in it for the money. So they just take it down.

All we can do is boycott google, and start using services of other search engines. Google searches are full of spam and promotions anyway.
And in longer run we need an independent international organization for domain services that is not based in USA.

John Berryhill 09.03.09 at 9:59 am

Peace to you all,

I have a question for many here.

If I were to start a website for religious software, such as calculating prayer times, would it be good of me to register: ?

If I were to start a halal fast food restaurant chain, what would you think of the name: ?

It is quite possible to run a video sharing site without having to use the mark “YouTube” in the name for it.

I agree there are many offensive, disrespectful and inappropriate videos available on YouTube. For that reason, why would anyone want to run a site for inspirational and sacred messages using the trademark “YouTube” in the name?

YouTube was already a famous name for a particular video sharing site when the name was chosen. There are other video sharing sites which do not use the term “YouTube” in their name. The only reason to use “YouTube” in the name is to ride on the reputation of the YouTube that already existed.

But we all agree that YouTube has many offensive videos posted on it. So why did this site try to associate the name YouTube with a good an honorable faith?

In peace,


jeff 09.19.09 at 2:16 pm

This is the most idiotic argument I ever heard. There are many websites with the site name, etc which are also well known. So why isnt google taking those down? This is not about whining to Joe J. Its about discrimination. Maybe the fact that youtube owner is jewish has to do a lot with this. by the way i m not arab but a white person. Its in their blood to offend trust me their talmud says it all.

Zak Muscovitch 09.19.09 at 2:59 pm

Anybody who follows ICANN UDRP cases (or has practised law inthis areas as I have, for ten years) will know that this case is not atypical in the least. It is a regular occurance for companies to commence ICANN UDRP proceedings against anyone that incorporates their trademark. There are literally thousands of such cases of companies all over the world going after all kinds of domains and sites that incorporate part or all of their trademark. The question nevertheless, ought to be in all of these cases, is whether the registrant registered AND used the domain name in bad faith. That is what the language of the UDRP requires. Furthermore, it is a long established principle of the UDRP that mere trademark disputes that do not directly involve “cybersquatting” per se, are not withing the jurisdiciton of the ICANN UDRP. In other words, the ICANN UDRP is not meant to be an all encompassing forum for trademark infringement disputes; it is only intended to provide a remedy for the limited circumstance of someone registering and using a domain name in bad faith, as a “cybersquatter”, not as a “trademark infringer”. For more information, see

Kieren McCarthy 09.20.09 at 9:42 am

Thankyou all for commenting on this post and, for the most part, discussing the case in a clam and reasonable manner, without resorting to accusation or stereotype.

I think there has been an interesting exchange of views and information here that should serve as a useful archive in future. We are now closing this post to further comments.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Comments on this entry are closed.