One can understand the frustration of developing countries with the current regime of internet governance. Several years ago, the South African Government was upset that a Seattle company called Virtual Countries Inc. had registered the domain name, southafrica.com. The Republic of South Africa issued a press release on the 30th October 2000. The Department of Communications stated its position that ‘countries have the first right to own their domain names’. The Republic of South Africa further stated that it intended to file an application by 10 November 2000 to assert its rights over southafrica.com. It also mentioned its submissions to a number of international organisations to reform the law regarding domain names and the geographical names of countries. The Press Release stated that the Republic of South Africa ‘could be the first country in the world to make a challenge for the right to own its own domain name in the largest of the high-level domain names - dot.com’. Virtual Countries. Inc filed a suit on the 3rd of November 2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Republic of South Africa and the South African tourist board to stop them from initiating an action against them under the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process. However, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeals rejected this suit Rbecausse the Republic's act had no "direct effect in the United States." For its part, the Republic of South Africa decided it would not commence an arbitration in WIPO or other organisation under the existing UDRP procedures until WIPO and ICANN had reformed the law in relation to domain names and geographical names. The problem is that geographical names - such as city names and country names - do not enjoy trade mark rights. Such names are obvious examples of non-distinctive marks. There are many precedents which have involved the rejection or expungment of trade marks using the name of the geographical source of the goods. The Republic of South Africa submitted a formal comment in March 2001, in which it stated that WIPO should recommend a per se exclusion on the registration of country names in the second-level domain, and the adoption of a policy subjecting entities that register country names in the second-level domain to binding arbitration. It tabled similar proposals in submissions to ICANN-GAC, the Ministerial Oversight Committee of the African Telecommunications Union, and a task force of the G-8 nations. The Republic of South Africa observed: "It is important to recognise that, largely due to the digital divide, this ‘gold rush’ by entities in developed nations occurred at a time when many developing nations were unaware of the activities of these entities and how these activities would affect them… If the current registrants, primarily western individuals and corporations, are permitted to continue to exploit these valuable national assets to which they have no rights, the effect will be to widen the digital divide to the further detriment of developing nations." No wonder nation states are demanding a greater say in the governance of ICANN. Rimmer, M. "Virtual Countries: Internet Domain Names And Geographical Terms", Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, February 2003, No. 106, p. 124-136, SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=603224