Arquivo mensais:agosto 2017

Spanish city council faces US lawsuit over domain name

A Spanish city council faces a US court battle over the domain name Following a decision by one of the domain arbitration bodies to award to the Barcelona City Council, the domain name’s owner, Inc, filed a lawsuit in the Virginia courts against the Council on August 18

( This prevents the immediate transfer of the domain name. The company has said it will continue to operate its business from the web site.

The World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO, one of the four arbitration organisations now dealing with domain name disputes, ruled August 10 that the City Council had “better rights” to and “more legitimate interests” in the name than the company. But the arbitrator’s criteria are not to be found anywhere in the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a policy supposedly applied to all domain disputes by every arbitrator.

Dr. Alejandro Pisanty, a professor at the Mexican university UNAM and a member of the executive board of ICANN, is sitting on the fence as far as the decision is concerned, but said in a letter to the domain name owners that the experience of will be “of great importance in identifying possible defects and faults in the system” for policing domain names. Other ICANN executive board members are reported to be “looking at the case”.

Karl E. Peters of the legal committee of the Association for Domain Owner Rights ( stated that the organisation had decided, for the first time in its history, to launch an appeal fund to help pay’s US legal costs.

[The decision] appears to be a classic case of misuse of power,” said Mr Peters. His organisation, representing thousands of small domain owners, plans to use the case as a ‘poster child’ in order to “set a precedent for future cases” and “start to bring some sanity” to the present mess. The battle is likely to be a long one: the City Council’s lawyers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, are quoted as saying they will “appeal the appeal” if necessary.

Several thousand companies have built a business around geographic domain names. is owned by the US newspaper the Boston Globe; the Irish Timespublishes information at, Boulevards New Media writes about alternative culture at and the US company owns dozens of city domain names, including, and, all used to provide vanity e-mail addresses.

The biggest Web name of all,, would have to hand over its largest cyber-asset to a regional government in Brazil if the arbitrator’s criteria were applied to its domain name.

Marino Porzio, the Chilean government adviser and former WIPO deputy director general acting as arbitrator in this case, argued in his decision that people looking for information about Barcelona “would normally expect to reach some official body or representative of the city of Barcelona itself” at, so the mere use of the domain name was a demonstration of bad faith. It is unclear whether Mr Porzio has ever used the Web.

Further evidence of bad faith, according to Porzio, was the council’s inquiry about investing in, as it was “evident” that the domain owner planned to obtain payment from the council by providing the council with a business plan when requested. Internet entrepreneurs will have to be more careful who they send their business plans to, according to Mr Porzio.

Michael Geist, a cyberlaw specialist at the University of Ottawa, Canada, said that the notion that surfers would mistake a dot-com address for the official site of a government organisation was “nonsense.”

“The dot-com space is commercial. I can’t believe that many people would expect to find the official site at that domain. If anything, one would expect the to be the official site as the country code domain, not”

In fact it is difficult to find any other city in the world that has a dot-com as its domain name. In the US, government organisations use the .gov suffix, in the UK all public organisations are registered as and in Australia the administration uses, while in France cities use .fr domains and a special prefix meaning ‘city hall’. These denominations make it clear that the content is provided by a government.

In Spain, the system is more confused, as the government has not established any naming system for the .es top level domain. Consequently, chaos reigns. But most Spanish city councils use an abbreviation for ‘ayuntamiento’ with .es domain names, such as for Valencia City Council.

Ellen Rony, co-author of “The Domain Name Handbook: High Stakes and Strategies in Cyberspace” ( ), says the decision is “wrongheaded and particularly troublesome”.

“There are far too many Internet users, and too many co-existing and legitimate uses for identical words, to justify transfer of a domain registration on the basis of a ‘presumption’ about what a person expects to find at that name,” according to Rony.

“‘Barcelona’ could be a surname, a product or a service unrelated to the city itself. A quick search of the US Patent and Trademark Office trademark database alone finds 11 active federal registrations for the word “Barcelona”. These trademarks are associated with computer software, furniture, clothing, ceiling fans, restaurant services, soft drinks, processed nuts and flatware, says Rony. Hundreds more can be found on trademark databases in other countries, while in Spain itself there are thousands.

There are numerous government organisations in Spain, and thousands of companies,with the word ‘Barcelona’ in their title. But neither they nor the City Council have an exclusive trademark on the word ‘Barcelona’. In fact, according to Spanish law, geographical names cannot be trademarked. The City Council’s Spanish trademarks are for expressions including the word Barcelona, not for the word Barcelona itself. Inc and the Barcelona City Council were not strangers before the current case. The Council claimed in its complaint that it has only just considered setting up a web site, only to find that ‘its’ name had been taken. However, the Council launched its own web city portal site,, in July 1995, later linking to, which it described as a “useful site”. Since then, the Council’s site has received substantial funding from the European Union’s Gala Project, according to its web manager, Adela Alos Moner.

The Council also owns more than thirty other domain names, only three of which include the word ‘Barcelona’. It has not, however, registered the national level domain name the registration of geographical domain names is forbidden under Spanish law.

This spring, Mr. Novoa, an employee of Council-run company Informació i Comunicació de Barcelona, approached, stating that the Council was interest in investing in the .com project. Shortly afterwards, the Council’s Mr Albert Broggi i Trias asked for a business plan.

But this spring the Council turned the tables. It filed trademark applications with the Spanish Trade Mark and Patent Office identical to domain names belonging to other organisations, including,, and, and then filed a domain dispute with the WIPO, stating it had the exclusive right to provide tourism information about Barcelona on the Internet.

The Council has also filed trademark applications this spring in the US for ‘Barcelona’ and ‘’ and in the European Union for ‘Barcelona’, all of which are expected to be rejected.

Ellen Rony believes that the city’s maneuvers look a lot like reverse domain-name hijacking, a claim made by the domain owners in their response to the complaint, which was ignored by the arbitrator.

“ is not a case of domain name registration made in bad faith but one of an ‘official body’ acting as a cyberbully,” she says. Cyberlaw academic Michael Geist agrees.

“The city council worked with this site for some time,” he said, “and clearly someone just thought, ‘Let’s see if we can get the domain ourselves.’ I find the filing for a trademark, a domain that the City is not entitled to – it is restricted to US educational institutions – particularly instructive.”

“The precedents that are being established are dangerous,” says Geist. “The rights of individual users are not being adequately considered. There has always been a problem with the complainant picking the provider, which leads to forum shopping. The growing number of puzzling decisions suggest that changes need to be made.”

Internet entrepreneur David Castello, who runs the web site, says, “decisions such as those by Mr. Porzio only serve to create a new form of abuse.” Castello’s empire includes, and, all domain names threatened by the ruling. “This kind of logic can label any legitimate business as a cybersquatter and encourage reverse domain name hijacking – which is what the Respondents correctly accused the City of Barcelona of doing.”

Ellen Rony goes further, arguing that ICANN should stop meddling with insoluble problems, and get rid of the UDRP: “Until better tools are devised to allow multiple uses of the same names, UDRP rulings such as this one are certain to inhibit the creativity of online entrepreneurs. ICANN should stick to its specific mandate of ‘technical’ coordination of the domain name system and leave the legal issues between a covetous name claimant and a domain name registrant to the court system.”

But while it has been busy trying to seize other people’s domain names, the Council has failed to protect its own real name. The Network Solutions database reports that a Spanish resident bought the domain name (Barcelona City Council in Spanish) on 29 January this year, while, the local Catalan translation of its name, was bought by a Barcelona sex shop,, on 18 May. The Council has yet to start complaint proceedings against the owners of these domain names, nor against the owners of the other 640 dot-coms containing the word ‘Barcelona’.

The City Council’s press releases, proudly proclaiming the ‘recovery’ of ‘their’ domain name, are still filling many column inches in the Spanish press, two weeks after the decision. It won’t be long before the next complainant gets on the Barcelona bandwagon, in Spain and elsewhere.

Resources Inc US lawsuit:

WIPO decision

other articles from the press:

Complaint with request for declaratory relief

(1) This action is brought to gain redress for state-law torts committed by defendant and for declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201, in a controversy relating to trademarks under the trademark laws of the United States; the jurisdiction of this court is founded on 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 (federal question), on 28 U.S.C. Section 1338(a) (trademark disputes), 28 U.S.C. Section 1338(b) (unfair competition claim joined with trademark claim) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1114(2)(D)(v) (Lanham Act).

(2) The jurisdiction of this court is also based on the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), as plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware and defendant is the city council of the city of Barcelona, Spain and the amount in controversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of seventy-five thousand dollars.

(3) Plaintiff BARCELONA.COM, INC. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware.


Council of the city of Barcelona, Spain, with an address of Placa Sant Miquel, 4-5,

Planta 3a, 08002 Barcelona (Spain).

(5) This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to the Virginia long-arm statute, Va. Code Section 8.01-328.1(A)(1) (Michie 1992), as defendant agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court (because the domain name registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. is located in Herndon, Virginia) in a complaint filed before the World Intellectual Property Organization.

(6) Venue is properly laid in this Court as defendant agreed, in a complaint filed before the World Intellectual Property Organization, to submit to the jurisdiction of this Court.

(7) As background, plaintiff directs the Court to the following excerpt from Sporty’s Farm v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2nd Cir. 2000) (footnotes omitted):

The Internet (or “World Wide Web”) is a network of computers that allows a user to gain access to information stored on any other computer on the network. Information on the Internet is lodged on files called web pages, which can include printed matter, sound, pictures, and links to other web pages. An Internet user can move from one page to another with just the click of a mouse.

Web pages are designated by an address called a domain name. A domain name consists of two parts: a top level domain and a secondary level domain. The top level domain is the domain name’s suffix. Currently, the Internet is divided primarily into six top level domains: (1) .edu for educational institutions; (2) .org for non-governmental and non-commercial organizations; (3) .gov for governmental entities; (4) .net for networks; (5) .com for commercial users, and (6) a nation-specific domain, which is .us in the United States. The secondary level domain is the remainder of the address, and can consist of combinations of letters, numbers, and some typographical symbols.  To take a simple example, in the domain name “,” cnn (“Cable News Network”) represents the secondary level domain and .com represents the top level domain. Each domain name is unique.

(8) The top-level domain for Spain is “.es”.

(9) In May 1995, defendant registered a domain name <>.

(10) At the time defendant registered the domain name <>, the domain name <> was available for registration.

(11) Since May 1995, defendant has maintained a website at <>.

(12) The website <> provides information of particular interest to residents of the city of Barcelona, Spain such as public work projects, traffic conditions, and information on the City Council.

(13) In 1996, Concepcion Riera Llena became interested in starting a commercial website to provide information about the province of Barcelona, Spain, the city of Barcelona, Spain and other cities in the world named “Barcelona”.

(14) On February 21, 1996, Riera Llena registered the domain name <>.

(15) In 1997, Riera Llena launched a website called “” at <>.

(16) Since 1997, the website <> has provided information about the province of Barcelona, Spain, the city of Barcelona, Spain and other cities in the world named “Barcelona”.

(17) In addition to information, the website <> provides an email service, a chat room, and advertising.

(18) On October 20, 1999, plaintiff, Inc. was incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

(19) Following the incorporation of, Inc., Riera Llena transferred the domain name <> to plaintiff.

(20) Plaintiff invested money and effort in developing and maintaining the <> website.

(21) For several years, <> and <> peacefully coexisted; in fact until May 2000, defendant’s website <> provided a link to plaintiff’s website <>.

(22) Neither plaintiff nor defendant has a Patent and Trademark Office registration for “Barcelona” or “”

(23) Plaintiff has filed an application for trademark registration with the Patent and Trademark Office for “BARCELONA.COM”.

(24) Defendant has filed an application for trademark registration with the Patent and Trademark Office for “Barcelona” and “”.

(25) Plaintiff received no complaint from defendant about the use of the domain name <> or the <> website until May 2, 2000, when plaintiff received a letter from defendant complaining about the domain name.

(26) On May 26, 2000, defendant filed a complaint against plaintiff before the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center seeking transfer of the domain name <> from plaintiff to defendant.

(27) On August 4, 2000, the single panelist of the World Intellectual Property Organization ruled in favor of defendant and ordered the domain name <> to be transferred to defendant.

(28) The arbitration proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization did not allow for objections to conflict of interest on the part of the World Intellectual Property Organization, discovery, or witness testimony.

(29) The proceeding before the World Intellectual Property Organization applied the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers rather than U.S. trademark law.


(30) As the World Intellectual Property Organization panel has required the transfer of the domain name <>, this Court has jurisdiction, under 15 U.S.C. Section 1114(2)(D)(v), to determine if the use of the domain name by plaintiff is unlawful under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1051-1127.

(31) No reasonable visitor to <> would believe that it was maintained or sponsored by defendant.

(32) A reasonable internet user would expect to find a site maintained by a municipality in Spain to have the top level domain for Spain of “.es”, which is in fact the top level domain of the website maintained by defendant at <>.

(33) A reasonable internet user would not expect to find a site maintained by a municipality to have a top level domain of “.com” as the “.com” domain was designed for commercial users.

(34) A reasonable internet user would not expect to find the domain name <> to be owned by a municipality as all the major city “.com” names in Spain (e.g., <>, <> and <>) and in Europe (e.g., <>, <> and <>) are owned by commercial users rather than by municipalities.

(35) Plaintiff’s use of the domain name <> is a fair or otherwise lawful use of the common geographical name, “Barcelona”.

(36) Under trademark law, a name that is primarily geographically descriptive is regarded as common property and cannot be appropriated as an exclusive trademark.

(37) The word “Barcelona” is registered as a trademark or service mark for a number of goods and services such as nuts, flatware, ceiling fans and furniture.

(38) Plaintiff submits that plaintiff has a defense to a cause of action against plaintiff for any alleged trademark infringement due to the fact that defendant is guilty of laches in failing to complain until May 2000 of plaintiff’s use of the domain name <>.

(39) Based on the facts set forth in the foregoing allegations, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff and defendant regarding the issue of whether plaintiff’s use of the domain name <> infringes on any trademark owned by defendant or whether plaintiff’s use of the domain name <> is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the website <> and whether defendant is barred by the defense of laches from seeking legal redress against plaintiff for the use of <>.

(40) Plaintiff is uncertain as to its rights with respect to the domain name <> and needs to have the issue resolved.

(41) This action is brought under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 2201 for the purpose of determining a question in actual controversy between the parties.

(42) A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that plaintiff may determine its rights and duties under the Federal Trademark laws and facts of this case.


(43) Plaintiff sues defendant under Virginia law for fraud and unfair competition.

In support of its cause of action against defendant for fraud and unfair competition, plaintiff realleges all previous paragraphs of this complaint.

(44) Plaintiff alleges that once defendant had decided to attempt to obtain the domain name <> from plaintiff, defendant devised and employed an unfair and fraudulent scheme to obtain the domain name.

(45) As a part of its scheme, on March 31, 2000, a company owned by defendant, Informacio I Comunicacio de Barcelona S.A. Societat Privada Municipal, while falsely claiming to be interested in investing or participating in further development of the <>, requested plaintiff’s business plan.

(46) Plaintiff provided defendant’s agent, Informacio I Comunicacio de Barcelona S.A. Societat Privada Municipal, with confidential information which defendant turned around and attempted to use against plaintiff in the WIPO proceeding.

(47) The information provided to Informacio I Comunicacio de Barcelona S.A. Societat Privada Municipal was confidential business information which would not have been provided but for the false and fraudulent statements made by Infornacio I Comunicacio de Barcelona S.A. Societat Privada Municipal.

(48) Plaintiff does not know the full extent of the use of its confidential business information by defendant.


(49) Plaintiff sues defendant under Virginia law for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

(50) In support of its cause of action against defendant for tortious interference, plaintiff realleges all previous paragraphs of this complaint.

(51) In March 2000, defendant was aware that plaintiff was seeking financing to further develop the <> website.

(52) Defendant was aware that plaintiff was expecting a letter of intent to extend to plaintiff a multimillion-dollar loan.

(53) Through defendant’s unfair scheme to obtain the domain name <>, including obtaining confidential business information from plaintiff, plaintiff has been unable to proceed with obtaining financing because of the uncertainty over the right to use the domain name.


(54) As a result of defendant’s fraudulent, unfair and tortious actions, plaintiff has been required to employ attorneys in order to protect its interest in its domain name <>.


(55) Defendant’s fraudulent conduct and acts of unfair competition have damaged plaintiff in excess of  $100,000.00.


(56) Plaintiff demands a jury.


WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that:

(a)    This Court adjudge that plaintiff’s use of the domain name <> does not infringe upon any trademark of defendant or cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the website, <>;

(b)   This Court adjudge that defendant is barred from instituting any action against plaintiff for trademark infringement;

(c)    Defendant pay damages in excess of $100,000.00 plus prejudgment and post judgment interest;

(d)   Defendant pay to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, together with reasonable attorney’s fees to be allowed plaintiff by the court; and

(e)    That the Court grant plaintiff such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

DATED: August 17, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,



Appearing Pro Hac Vice

623 E. St. Charles Street

Brownsville, Texas 78520

Telephone (956) 541-8529

Facsimile (956) 546-0008

Destination for online security

For 30 years the destination for online security news, network security, forums, technology review, dictionary and business directoryCOLLECTED BYFor 30 years the destination for online security news, network security, forums, technology review, dictionary and business directoryCOLLECTED BY Organization: Archive Team Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.

History is littered with hundreds of conflicts over the future of a community, group, location or business that were “resolved” when one of the parties stepped ahead and destroyed what was there. With the original point of contention destroyed, the debates would fall to the wayside. Archive Team believes that by duplicated condemned data, the conversation and debate can continue, as well as the richness and insight gained by keeping the materials. Our projects have ranged in size from a single volunteer downloading the data to a small-but-critical site, to over 100 volunteers stepping forward to acquire terabytes of user-created data to save for future generations.

The main site for Archive Team is at and contains up to the date information on various projects, manifestos, plans and walkthroughs.

This collection contains the output of many Archive Team projects, both ongoing and completed. Thanks to the generous providing of disk space by the Internet Archive, multi-terabyte datasets can be made available, as well as in use by the Wayback Machine, providing a path back to lost websites and work.

Our collection has grown to the point of having sub-collections for the type of data we acquire. If you are seeking to browse the contents of these collections, the Wayback Machine is the best first stop. Otherwise, you are free to dig into the stacks to see what you may find.

The Archive Team Panic Downloads are full pulldowns of currently extant websites, meant to serve as emergency backups for needed sites that are in danger of closing, or which will be missed dearly if suddenly lost due to hard drive crashes or server failures.

Collection: ArchiveBot: The Archive Team Crowdsourced Crawler  ArchiveBot is an IRC bot designed to automate the archival of smaller websites (e.g. up to a few hundred thousand URLs). You give it a URL to start at, and it grabs all content under that URL, records it in a WARC, and then uploads that WARC to ArchiveTeam servers for eventual injection into the Internet Archive (or other archive sites).

To use ArchiveBot, drop by #archivebot on EFNet. To interact with ArchiveBot, you issue commands by typing it into the channel. Note you will need channel operator permissions in order to issue archiving jobs. The dashboard shows the sites being downloaded currently.

There is a dashboard running for the archivebot process at

ArchiveBot’s source code can be found at

Latest News

This would have been a game changer back in college when you were cramming for a mid-termlast minute. Alas, it wasn’t meant for you, but at least those youngsters still in school get to benefit. The latest Pro’s come equipped with a handy defining feature that helps you parse through arduous text, aka everything from your senior year. [Read More…]

Did you know that there are bound to be lots of unnecessary files that are just sitting around on your Mac’s hard drive and taking up space? As you can imagine it is far from ideal, and may even be starting to fill up your hard drive and leave you short of space – or affecting your Mac’s performance. [Read More…]

Integrated software has made it possible to solve even the most irrational problems faced in industrial engineering. However, such problems with the growing use of technology are likely to increase over time. Thankfully, integrated software is here to save the day. [Read More…]

For such organizations, CRM is the latest technology, which can provide guidance and help to the Sales Ops, by providing them an automated tool to make the Sales operation execution easier. [Read More…]

This week iSign International, an international digital communication company dedicated to developing solutions to help companies achieve greater autonomy over their communication channels, officially released the latest version of iCheckin. iCheckin is an integrated visitor tracking solution and communication platform that improves visitor [Read More…]

Complia Health announces the latest release of Suncoast Version 8 which marks a new era of innovation for Suncoast customers. Schaumburg, IL (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Complia Health, a leading global provider of home health care and hospice enterprise software, announced today, the release of the innovative and highly anticipated hospice software [Read More…]

Identifies risks, without having to establish rules or thresholds. SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Fortscale Security Ltd., the pioneer in embeddable behavioral analytics, announced a new patent that moves the user and entity behavior analytics (UEBA) industry forward. The patent, “Identifying Insider-Threat Security Incidents via [Read More…]

Hitachi Solutions Asia Pacific will implement its proprietary billing solution to help Ports of Auckland streamline and automate its order to cash cycle. Auckland, New Zealand (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Hitachi Solutions Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., a leading provider of industry specific business solutions built on Microsoft Dynamics, is pleased to [Read More…]

Easier virtual prototyping with latest release of low frequency electromagnetic, electric field and thermal design & analysis software Montreal, Quebec (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Infolytica Corporation today released new versions of their industry-leading MagNet, ElecNet, ThermNet and OptiNet simulation software. There are many significant [Read More…]

Tech to Us is Offering an Exciting Giveaway for Small Businesses with the Grand Prize of One Full Year of Remote IT Support. Hartford, CT (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Today, Tech to Us announced that it is giving away an entire year of remote IT support services to a US small business; valued at up to $10,000 for the year. Businesses can enter here: [Read More…]

CNE Direct founder and CEO, Paul Knight, announces that he is promoting the company’s current VP of Corporate Strategy, Jerry Quill, to take over his position as CEO and assume responsibility for CNE’s day-to-day operations, effective June 19, 2017. Peabody, MA (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 CNE Direct founder and CEO, Paul Knight, announces that he is [Read More…]

Fellows enrich the Apereo community by providing technical expertise, teaching, research, community organization, support, and leadership Gilbert, AZ (PRWEB) June 20, 2017 Unicon, Inc., a leading IT consulting, services, and support provider specializing in open source for the education technology market, today announced that Benito Gonzalez, [Read More…]

Apache Big Data is an open foundation software platform for dispersed storing and scattered processing of very big data sets on processer clusters built from product hardware. Hadoop services deliver for data storage, data dispensation, data access, data supremacy, security, and actions. [Read More…]

App development is huge right now, and you or your company could stand to gain a lot by putting your own app out there. But whether you own a company or simply want to try your hand at making an app you think will be useful, it’s important to start off with the knowledge of what characteristics successful apps tend to have.

As part of its core mission, the NAPCP, a membership-based professional association serving the Commercial Card and Payment industry worldwide, sponsors research and publishes timely and relevant white papers, survey results and other documents, leveraging the association’s vast knowledge and experience that move the industry forward. The three [Read More…]123…2,317»antalya rent a carseslisohbetseslichatseks shop -izolasyonbasic theory test bookbasic theory test.

10 Digital Publishing Tips for Successful Publishers

Latest NewsHome » Articles » Internet » 10 Digital Publishing Tips for Successful PublishersLatest NewsHome » Articles » Internet » 10 Digital Publishing Tips for Successful Publishers

Tips 4: Fill Meta content of digital publications. Most digital publishing software provides HTML Meta settings for publishers, you can also find this option from Kvisoft Flipbook Maker Pro when publish magazine by using this e magazine software. Google pay attention to your Meta title and description. Please make sure your title is descriptive and optimized with keywords, but don’t need to long, it will be truncated if too long, preferably 20-66 characters. The descriptions need to be more attractive for searchers that this is the content they need, or they will leave to click on other’s content, no matter how well optimized or how high rank.

Tips 5: Use digital magazine to brand your retail visibility. Provide free content to to help companies drive brand awareness and sales.

Tips 6: transfer your best-sell print products to digital products. The publishers know the target audience. Turn these printed products into digital products can help you increase sales, and customers also find a new style, digital model.

Tips 7: Use digital content to sell more advertising. Keep your content scarcity, exclusivity. Use these scarcity and exclusivity content to get sponsorships and then increase your sales.

Tips 8: More and more people like digital magazine, they don’t know yours exists if you don’t promote it. Most people read digital magazine through iPad, but don’t let your reader to search yours, it is so hopeless botched when it comes to search. Promote your magazines on every place to your potential readers: on your website, in your mailings of bills and renewal efforts to print customers, in your emails and on social media

Tips 9: Today’s consumers want you to use the technology that available for you, now video is the hot technology. You can show it on your digital magazine content or on your website. Or you can also get videos by other ways, get bloggers in your content niche to provide them in return for exposure, or get a camera with great audio capabilities, sit down your editor, ask him or her a pertinent question about your niche, and let the editor respond naturally. It doesn’t have to be fancy.

Tips 10: Multiplatform. The most important, today’s digital publisher must be willing to provide content on every platform available to them. That means print, website, emails, magazines – print and digital – video, books, and events.There is no one kind of product that will make you a successful 21st-century publisher.  Remember to re-use, recycle and repurpose the content you already have or are creating, and you’ll become one very happy and profitable digital publisher.

Share the joyRelated Articles

iGoogle Closes in 30 Days, Over 15 Million Users to be Affected

Google is shutting down its personalized iGoogle service in 30 days, which will leave an estimated 15 million[1] loyal users without their favorite homepage. Google remains ambiguous as to why the service is being terminated, stating the need “eroded over time.” In light of this, several start pages were developed as excellent alternatives, some even promise to be better than the original iGoogle.

“I don’t understand Google’s decision to abandon iGoogle,” writes Oldsage in the Google Product Forums. “I know what I lose – a valuable, everyday tool for managing my life, but I’m baffled in trying to figure out what Google gains.” Over 1,000 other complaints were posted, from amazed to utterly devastated: “Why…why, why… in all of today’s noise iGoogle is the ONE place that I can sort that noise out – What’s the big deal? Why not just leave it alone?”

Many iGoogle alternatives exist to fill the void so many got emotional about. Most offer easy migration and export/import options. Some are feature-packed and complex, like Netvibes or Protopage, while others are incredibly simple and intuitive, like STARTME – offering a fast and clean experience, possibly even more than iGoogle itself.

Links: (,,

In conclusion, chances are you know a few people who are going to be affected by this massive Google decision, some of them might even be surprised as their home page disappears one day. Now is the time to tell them to move on, pick an alternative, and who knows – it might even be better than what they’re used to.

Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these Rights, Governmentsare instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.

HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyranny only.

HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.

HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining, in the mean Time, exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.

HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.

HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our Legislatures.

HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:

FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:

FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:

FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:

FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.

HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection, and waging War against us.

HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.

HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with Circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.

HE has constrained our Fellow-Citizens, taken Captive on the high Seas, to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes, and Conditions.

IN every Stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every Act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.

NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them, from Time to Time, of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our Connexions and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the Rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connexion between them and the State of Great-Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of Right do. And for the Support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honour.

Signers of the Declaration of Independence


Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

-Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.

-Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

-Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.

-Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

-Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists, eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

-Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

-Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

-Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

-At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

-Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

-John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year, he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later, he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

-Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education strengthened by the love and support of equally courageous women. They had security and love, but they valued liberty for their families more.

Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:

“For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

They gave each of us a free and independent America.

The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn’t just fight the British. We were British subjects, or secondary citizens, at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn’t. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July Holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: Freedom is never free.

It’s hard to fathom what these people did so long ago. Ask yourself:

Could you sign your own death warrant in the name of freedom? Could you sign your children’s death warrant? Could you stand to loose all that you had worked so hard for in the name of a dream, not even a guarantee, of freedom for your family and your neighbors? In these modern days, I doubt that such bravery, vision and thirst for freedom exists. We have become a society of takers believing that comfort is a given. In fact, our freedoms of today are as a direct result of these men and women, our forefathers, making a collective stand in the face of certain death in order to establish our birthright……..freedom.

Groups cite bias in domain name arbitration

A new coalition says legitimate mom-and-pop e-businesses are losing their domain names to larger companies at an alarming rate.

A lobbying campaign is being launched by relatively new groups including the Association for Domain Owners’ Rights, the Top-Level Domain Lobby and

These groups say an inherent bias exists in three arbitration providers launched last December by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Few people question the new arbitrators’ decisions reversing “cybersquatting.” Cybersquatters are those who register trademarked names just so they can resell them to the trademark owners.

The domain owners’ coalition, however, says many arbitrators’ decisions have upended real businesses that have nothing to do with cybersquatting.

Under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN’s board, trademark owners can only take away names that someone else is using “in bad faith.” A sign of bad faith is registering a name “primarily for the purpose of selling” it to a trademark holder.

Any use of a trademarked word in a domain name, however, does not equal trademark infringement. Legally, a trademark owner cannot stop all use of a word (or prevent noncommercial uses).

For example, at least seven businesses in four different countries hold trademarks on the term “FiberShield.” The uses of this term for insulation, swimming pool covers and other products legally coexist.

The new domain owners’ coalition is crying “foul” over arbitrators’ decisions on this name and others:

  • was registered by a Canadian company that had operated for several years under the name Fiber Shield Ltd. without registering it as a trademark. ICANN’s policy states that domain names cannot be taken away if a business has been “commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark.” Despite this, the name was canceled by arbitrators upon request of the U.S. trademark owners of another domain name,
  • was registered, according to an arbitrator’s decision, as “a non-profit site” designed to “attempt to help others to understand.the nature of severe depression.” The site didn’t sell anything commercially, being purely for social comment on mental health. But arbitrators transferred the name to pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly, owner of the trademark Prozac.
  • was registered by a Washington, D.C., company that was invited by sportswear retailer J. Crew International to join its affiliate network. According to the arbitrator’s findings of fact, J. Crew initially encouraged the young site, promising “a commission for sales” generated by banners. The mood then changed and the firm sought to take the domain name from its owner. The arbitration panel agreed to do so.

This last case is especially interesting because it provoked a livid protest from one jurist on the three-member arbitration panel.

In a dissent attached to the case, trademark attorney G. Gervaise Davis III denounced “the biased test the panel has used.” He wrote that the arbitrators created “a dangerous and unauthorized situation whereby the registration and use of common generic words as domains can be prevented by trademark owners.”

The ICANN arbitration provider that seems the harshest toward defendants is WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization.

In the first half of 2000, WIPO awarded plaintiffs 84 percent of the names they sought. By contrast, another arbitrator, eResolution, awarded plaintiffs only 47 percent of the disputed names it ruled on.

Plaintiffs are allowed to choose which provider will decide their case, and the wind is shifting. In the first quarter of this year, WIPO received only 46 percent of the cases submitted. By the second quarter, WIPO was processing the majority: 54 percent.

Mike Roberts, ICANN’s chief executive, said in an interview that an evaluation of the arbitration process was being prepared, and, “We’ll look at it in 12 months.” The report is expected in November 2000.

Let’s hope some of the Web sites facing arbitration can make it that long.

Consumer advocate Brian Livingston appears at CNET every Friday. Do you know of a problem affecting consumers? Send info to He’ll send you a book of high-tech secrets free if you’re the first to submit a tip he prints.

Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

The only problem is, there’s no consumer protection. There’s plenty of protection for big business and the Trademark Lobby, though. So much, in fact, that the Trademark Law, into which the new Anticybersquatting law was incorporated, has been perverted to the point where individuals and small businesses are at risk of losing it all to the big boys. The name for this practice is “reverse hijacking” and has become common place.

The U.S. is also setting a bad example for other countries. Because of the rash of reverse hijackings here, major corporations (and not so major) are using the same intimidating tactics elsewhere. A good example is Chase Manhattan Bank in the U.K. intimidating a legitimate existing business into giving up its name ( Chase Business Solutions, an internet solutions consultancy) because it could not afford to litigate. They held a funeral on 6/16 for their old company and it’s name. Their new name,SolutionsWarehouse.Com, must now be marketed, costing this small company big dollars. Unfortunately, this is typically what happens when a large company decides it wants your name, whether it is in use or not. Their lack of foresight becomes your loss.

There has been a lot of talk about the President having wanted this bill passed into law. It’s true that he wanted a bill with that title, but not THIS bill. The title is a misnomer in the first degree.

Because of language in the law, if you register a domain name, hold it for later use or decide to sell it along with others, for just about any reason, it can be taken from you. It doesn’t matter if you had no idea that anyone else may want to use it (not that it should matter), or that you have a reason for wanting the name (other than extorting a trademark holder), or even if you had it registered years before someone else. If another entity with deeper pockets and a desire for your name wants it, they can get it pretty easily. Rarely will the individual (Respondent) keep it.

Don’t believe it? Go to this page ICANN | Search UDRP Proceedings and read some of the results of arbitration for yourself. You will notice that there are many more “Transferred” than “Respondent.” There are many “Cancelled” also. Cancelled means the name goes back into the pool for anyone to register.

Here’s the good part. During the pending proceeding, if you are registered with NSI and many others, there is a good chance your name will be placed on “hold” (that is put out of commission) when the complaint is filed. If you have an active site, bye-bye.

The organizations responsible for this fiasco are ICANN (INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS) and WIPO (WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION), which has a set of rules, UDRP (UNIFORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICIES. These rules take the law and twist it out of shape, making it nearly impossible for anyone with multiple names or holding one for later use or resale. Even if the name is generic, it can be taken. Ex. E-Auto-Parts, E-cards, EResolution, crew, and many, many more.

Herein likes the crux of the problem.

The language in the UDRP goes way beyond the scope and intent of the law and the arbitrators generally are in favor of the complainant. The policies and law were written with major influence from the Trademark Lobby. The results are a travesty, ruining individuals and business in droves. Since ICANN began using the UDRP, almost a thousand cases have been filed, most of which have gone to the side of the Trademark Lobby with little consideration for individual rights.

First, you have no rights to refuse arbitration. It is mandatory and built in to the agreement you sign when you register your name. The Complainant has no such mandate and can choose litigation instead. The “Complainant” gets to choose the arbitrator instead of a mututal choice; the Complainant has rights to appeal; the Respondent has none, nada, zilch. In addition, the Complainant can pay to have the last word. For a fee of $150 (to NAF), the Complainant can present a rebuttal to the Respondent’s statement within 5 days of the respondant’s latest due date. What that means is the Complainant can effectively cut off any chance for the Respondant to answer. Do you really think that arbitration can be fair when the arbitrator is paid by the Complainant in order to make a rubuttal? The decisions have cited precedent which the arbitrators have set themselves, many times contradicting the vaguely worded law, and even themselves! Decisions have been wildly inconsistent, so you really have no idea what you are up against.

Oh, lest I forget.  There is now another twist.  A Respondent won in a court of law.  The Complainant did not care for that outcome and then filed a UDRP complaint.  The complaint was accepted!  The court action did not matter at all!  So now we see that ICANN’s UDRP does supercede national laws.  This small non-profit corporation has indeed set itself up a governing body that answers to no one.

Can you do anything about it? Little. You can take it to court, of course, IF you have the funds and, when necessary, IF you can travel to the jurisdiction where the complaint is filed. You will have only 10 days in which to locate and hire an attorney, draft the papers and file in court. You can try to reason with the complainant – good luck. You can hire an attorney to fight it for you, again, if you have the funds. Remember, you have only ten days from the decision date to file with the court. Upon notice of the decision, your registrar is obligated to pull your domain. And don’t forget that the UDRP crosses country boundaries. Uh, huh. You could be fighting a battle in Asia, while you live in the U.S. That’s about it.

  1. It is simple and cheap for the Complainant to file with ICANN for arbitration 2. The arbitrator is chosen by the Complainant.3. While the victim (you) can require a panel of three, you have to pay for it. Most respondents don’t have the means to do so. 4. It is easy for the complainant to have have the last word with NAF. 5. If and when the decision goes against you by the UDRP, your registrar is obligated to pull your domain. 6. The UDRP crosses country boundaries. 7. You have only 10 days in which to file in court if you choose to go that route (if you can afford it). 8. UDRP arbitrators are using precedents they have set themselves and have, in effect, become an organ of law. You lose your domain upon their decision with little or no recourse.  9. Even if you take it to court and WIN, the complainant can still file a UDRP complaint.  Circular?  You bet.  Fair – not at all.  Biased for the IP interests?  Absolutely.

You don’t have much of a chance.

That’s why the TLDlobby has come to be. There has to be an organized body of individuals who come together to fight for their rights. We do have rights – or we did/should. We want them back! It’s called “due process.”

The United States of America fought a revolution against unfairness and tyranny. Read the Declaration of Independence and see if you don’t agree that if placed in present context, is it surprisingly relevant. This country’s history is based upon free enterprise and another of its liberties is free speech. The internet has been a bastion of these rights since its beginning. Now, however, we are in danger of losing those rights. Not only to big government, but to big business. If it keeps up, corporate America will own and run the internet and no individual will have rights. Also, ICANN will be the ruling entity for the ccTLD’s as well, so no one is exempt. That is why we are working for All individual domain name holders.

What can WE do? We can form a strong body with a loud, strong voice and lobby Congress for relief. We need to change the language of the legislation via amendment to remove some language which makes it much to broad and vague, and we need to make sure that ICANN stays within that law and its own mandate of a bottom-up organization which represents all users of the internet. The DOC is responsible for oversight of ICANN, but seems ineffectual. If there is to be arbitration, it should follow the narrow guidelines set by the Trademark law. In addition, the Trademark law has been in existence since 1946. It is time to take a close look at it to see if it needs changes as well.

Download a logo to put on your website. Most of the press you read is very misleading. The term “cybersquatting” is misused to include anyone who registers a domain name and does not use it or uses it for criticism, parody or almost anything else. The UDRP decisions have gone so far as to say it is “bad faith” to simply register a name and hold it or offer it for sale (quite legal and legitimate), yet big business hoards thousands of names. It is up to us to counter the negative press we are receiving and express our side of the story. HELP US! Spread the word. It’s free!

You also need to look closely at the agreements you automatically accept when you register a domain name. While there are areas which are forced upon them by ICANN, there are others which are up to the registrars themselves. Make yourself aware of what you are agreeing to. Avoid those registrars whose agreements are way out of line, such as NSI. Some agreements have similar clauses in them, but when you speak to them, many will tell you that they will only act on them if absolutely necessary. It’s all very vague, and mostly prompted by ICANN’s rules. The registrars are being held hostage in that way.

On an immediate basis, you should join ICANN’s Membership At-Large right now! There is a small window in which your voice may count for something. We need to show that we care, if nothing else. Go to the ICANN site and click through the the At Large Membership registration. The next thing you can do is register for the DNSO (Domain Name Supporting Organization of ICANN) elections.

You can join us! We have a new discussion mail list.  Subscribe here.  It’s a low volume mail list and there are options for receiving just digest if you prefer.

You can donate to the cause. We need money, attorneys, writers and other talented people. Fill out our form and indicate where you feel you can help! If you can donate money, indicate that also. We will contact you regarding to whom to mail a check. Any funds donated will be used to lobby for domain owners’ rights. Lobbyists and attorneys are expensive and nothing happens without that effort. We begin in D.C.

PLEASE, whatever you do, get an education! One excellent source is ICANN WATCH. Another is ICB TOLL FREE NEWS. It requires a subscription, but there is a FREE option with a great deal of news available. You will often see references to Judith Oppenheimer of ICB TOLL FREE NEWS on this site and many others. She is a Member of ICANN’s Working Group B, an advocate of our cause and a fine writer. Her site,, is amazingly rich in information and resources. You will see her articles and posts on many relevant sites, as well as on Afternic’s forums and Domainwatch.

Also, visit The Domainwatch forum at Delphi. We are new there, but have a lively discussion going on. We can learn a lot from one another. In addition, there is Afternic’s community forums. You want to click on “community” and then go to Forums, then the Policy forum. Again, there is a sign up requirement to join, but it’s also FREE, as is Domainwatch.

Find out what can effect you in keeping your domain name(s). I am certain that once you have read the material available, you will want to join us to keep the internet open and free for speech and enterprise world wide.

Feel free to download these (temporary, I’m working on it) logos to place on your web site or homepage. Let people know you stand for free speech and free enterprise on the internet! The wider the exposure, the faster we have influence to affect change.

Please keep in mind that you must add proper HTML code to provide a link to this site. You must also save the graphic to your hard drive or server and not access our server to display it. That is stealing someone else’s bandwidth and is not legal unless you have their permission. The server space for this site is being donated by Cyberactive Solutions, so let’s not abuse it, okay? Remember, if your graphics are in a different directory from your page, you will have to insert your graphics directory into the code. You can view the “source” code from your browser and copy/paste it into your web page.

Once you have placed the graphic and code on your page, I would appreciate your emailing me with the URL. I would like to know who is displaying it.

The only prohibition to using these logos is they cannot be used on any adult sites, nor can they be used on sites which have abusive, threatening or illegal content of any kind. This organization supports all domain name holders with the exception of those operating with anything that skirts or breaks the law of any jurisdiction. For instance, copyrighted material, instructions for overthrowing a government, extortion, illegal money making schemes, spammers, true Trademark infringement, etc. Those are the things which will cause a domain owner to lose the name and the site in any court of law.

We’re on the honor system here, so downloading the graphic implies that you agree to the above terms. Thank you for understanding.