|
List of all DNC authorised registrars is available with .nz domain name pricing and other details. Please be advised that the list is out of date but it will be updated in future.
|
Sunday, 19 December 2004
|
|
Brickbat II
Ahh, Peiter Mcaulay has updated his report. I guess he read this blog posting. To see the orginal 'free form' version I just happen to have a copy of it.
9:57:31 PM
|
|
more on itunes.co.nz
This is a follow up to the short post about itunes.co.nz domain name. It is timely that about a week later the .nzDP options paper was released.
This is a classic case of an ‘international’ company (Apple) that rolled out a very popular service in the USA and then Europe, UK and Canada and now finds that the name has been taken in a local country. The interesting thing is itunes.co.nz was only registered on October 17, 2003, a long time after itunes was launched in the USA (itunes.com was first registered in 1998).
This, on the surface seems obvious that the itunes.co.nz registrant was fully aware of the relationship between the names of iPod and iTunes. The two terms do not have any relationship as far as I can tell other than Apple and their millions of dollars of marketing. Using itunes.co.nz to sell iPod related material, which is the reason stated, appears to be admitting that they wanted to use the Apple marketing effort to sell product/services.
I guess the key issue is the term itunes trade marked in New Zealand?
Based on the IPONZ website Trade Mark 647536 is for the descriptor ‘ITUNES’. It was filed in Oct 2001 and registered May 2002.
Game, Set and Match.
4:45:02 PM
|
|
DNC issues .nz disputes process options paper
After years in the making an options paper has been released on possible .nz disputes process (.nzDP?). I was aware of the .uk DRS but always thought it was actually performed by Nominet and not just the first (free) mediation aspect. So far I have no been convinced of a need for a .nzDP but then again I dont have to live with the impact of not having one. Reading the paper I think that a WIPO run process would be worse than status quo and that Option 1 outlined has merit and should be looked at further.
I wonder who in the group does not think a process is required?
3:23:01 PM
|
|
e-govt report on trust
A story on ComputerWorld raised an eyebrow with me this weekend. It is a report from the e-government unit about 'un-patched' users, ISP's and regulation. A quote from the report included by ComputerWorld is worrying:
"Government should approach InternetNZ and the two main telcos who own almost all the broadband connections"
Now InternetNZ has approx. 100 individual members and about 20 corporates. I would hardly call InternetNZ representing the Internet 'users' of NZ. In fact the membership continues to decline even with the mandate of the 'new' Executive Director was to increase membership and out reach. The local scout group or sports team has a wider representation of the community than InternetNZ ever has!
The last paragraph is a major leap away from security for users and goes on about InternetNZ governance. InternetNZ has great governance. Yeah right.
I looked at the e-government website for the report. Here are the recommendations which perhaps are not as 'bad' as the story outlines.
3:01:45 PM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Foxbane Ltd and Steven Heath.
Last update: 9/07/2007; 10:25:50 p.m..
|
|
| December 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
| Nov Jan |
|
Archived Months
February 2006
January 2006
|
|
|
