Posts filed under 'domaining'
by Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
As you can see from information about the wiki, ICANNWiki.org is based in the city of Portland, in the state of Oregon.
Oregon is one of the world leaders for the Open Source community. In fact, it is not uncommon for companies from around the globe to open up a research and development arm here in Oregon to take advantage of Oregon’s Open Source community.
Portland, Oregon’s largest city, is home to many people who actively work with and develop for the Open Source community. As such there are many ideas and conversations regarding community. From my perspective, with my position at ICANNWiki, I can not think of a better city in which to be located to have active, ongoing conversations with other members of the Open Source community.
With that said I was at an informal after-hours event a couple of days ago where I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman whose business profession is that of copy writing. I have always viewed copy writers of any country as the unofficial keepers of their respective language. A good copy writer ensures what we read not only conveys the message properly, they ensure that what is conveyed is grammatically correct.
After learning about ICANNWiki.org and how it is a neutral resource for the various communities that make up the overall ICANN community, those being ICANN academics, registries, registrars and domainers, he could not help but refer to this community as “Your Community”. He was not referring to “Your Community” in a bad way, just his way of referencing the whole ICANN community in our conversation.
The reason I thought this conversation was interesting enough for a separate post is every language, in some way or another is adaptable over time. English is one of the more flexible, or adaptable languages out there. He noted that as time has progressed the English language has evolved very rapidly in the last decade. True, the advent of computers have brought English terms to English and other languages, such as “PC”, “hard disk” and “mouse”, to name a few. Also, through “Your Community” new words have emerged, such as “Google”, “Twitter” and “Yelp”, also to name a few. However this gentleman felt that “Your Community”, or the overall ICANN community, has done more for bringing change to, or “influencing” the English language than any other such “influencer”. What he was referring to was how the Internet has brought people together, locally as well as globally and how communication can take place NOW as opposed to later. People can text, call, IM (instant message), e-mail, play games, connect with other networks, etc… FAR more easily than they could a little over a decade ago. Think back to your communication habits or capabilities back in 1995.
ICANN has created the standards and stability for the Internet. Companies and domainers, through development, provide the content and applications people use while registries and registrars provide the naming conventions people use to access applications. So, in a nut shell, “Your Community” has done a lot to advance the evolution of the English language.
With that said I could not help but wonder if a person, whose profession is copy writer in the English language, has already seen a quicker evolution of English, what will other copy writers experience of their respective languages once IDNs have been implemented for 5 years?
So while he kept referring to “Your Community” in our conversation, I couldn’t help but think about “Our Community” and how often can you be part of something where “Your Community” can have such an influence on the evolution of languages and how people communicate. So, hat’s off to “Our Community”!
August 18th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
The below is what was printed in today’s Sedo newsletter, with content assembled by Crystal Peterson of The Public Interest Registry.
With the increased focus on the importance of corporate social responsibility and green issues, businesses are reaping the rewards of maintaining a separate .org website alongside their commercial .com.
What better way to clearly differentiate charitable and social initiatives from commercial initiatives than by operating a .org to highlight a corporate foundation’s mission?
Just look at these leading companies for examples of the trend to utilize their .org for corporate foundations:
• WholeFoodsMarket.com runs the WholePlanetFoundation.org to provide “innovative assistance for entrepreneurship - including direct microcredit loans and tangible support for other community partnership projects…to create wealth and prosperity in emerging economies;” and
• Google.com operates Google.org, which “aspires to use the power of information and technology to address the global challenges of our age: climate change, poverty and emerging disease.”
“Google and Whole Foods are just two of the innovative corporations that are branding their green initiatives, philanthropic efforts and outreach activities behind the Trustmark of .org to gain more attention and traffic,” says Alexa Raad, CEO of .org, The Public Interest Registry.
Most organizations, who have a .org in conjunction with other TLDs, point their .org to their principle TLD to maximize the number of eyeballs to their core product. However, with ICANNWiki.org’s focus being “community”, many organizations miss a golden opportunity – the opportunity to enhance their brand and loyalty through highlighting their involvement with the community.
How does your business interact with the community? Utilizing a .org is the best way to highlight the community-minded aspect of your business!
August 13th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
of ICANNWiki.org
In my morning read I ran across the following article that announces the debut of “Cuil”, a new search engine.
The creator of this search engine, Anna Patterson, is no stranger to search engines as she once had a search engine company that was apparently impressive enough for Google to purchase in 2004 to upgrade their own system.
After working at Google for a while, she and a couple of Google’s engineers left Google to create another search engine that is to better Google.
So I headed over to “Cuil” to check it out. I proceeded to do a VERY scientific number of searches to arrive at an authoritative opinion. (ok, ok, so I did a couple of searches…..)
True, I tried my test search of “Bill Chase”, the founder and leader of my first favorite rock band back in the 70s before Bill and most of his band, “Chase” were killed in a plane crash in 1974 – hence a somewhat obscure search. I was amazed by the content delivered and the speed was amazing!
True, Cuil has a way to go, but impressive none-the-less.
However, while doing other searches I found things don’t rank like you typically find on Google or Yahoo. This lead me to realize that what we find today, through searches on Google and Yahoo, are what has developed over time. By time I am referring to ranking based upon change, thus relevance.
So what might this mean for those organizations who have worked to ensure higher placement? How long will it take for sites, or pages, to once again rank higher? Does a new search engine mean a new way of search engine optimization? How should an “optimizer” approach Cuil differently than Google? For that matter, how should an optimizer approach Cuil differently than Yahoo? Another way of looking at this is while a site may have accrued a lot of “Google Juice” or “Yahoo Juice”, what does it take to accrue an equal amount of “Cuil Juice”?
With that said, what impact will this have on businesses who work with optimization specialists to rank high to bring in the proverbial “eye balls”? Same with those in the domaining community.
True, Yahoo and Google are not going away ANYTIME soon. OPPORTUNITY? The opportunity I see with Cuil is how often do we have a search engine “petrie dish” to examine and watch how sites initially as well as evolve in rank? How cuil is that?!!!!
July 28th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
Last month Paris was the site for all things Internet.
June 21-26 ICANN held its 32nd International meeting. I am not saying that fits my claim of “All things Internet” because two other conferences were being held just prior to ICANN’s conference. The other two conferences were the EGENI conference on the 20th and the Domainer Meeting on the 19th and the 20th. All three conferences were held at the same venue.
As we all know, the goal of ICANN meetings is to focus on utilizing input for purposes of the development of policy regarding the Internet. The Domainer Meeting focused on the domaining industry with sessions on the industry followed by an auction. The EGENI conference covered issues regarding the future of the internet, what users want and the impact of new TLDs, especially what they may be able to do from a cultural and heritage perspective.
While ICANN continued to have their “standards” feel, and the Domainer Meeting continued with the Domainer entrepreneurial spirit, the EGENI conference viewed more into Internet Governance from the public perspective. The EGENI conference also provided perspective from the needs of the European Union in the overall global discussion.
From ICANNWiki’s perspective, this is a dream only because everyone that makes up the ICANNWiki “community” was under one roof. What I especially liked was members from the three groups were talking – TOGETHER! While members of the EGENI conference actively take part in the various ICANN conferences, there are members from the Domainer community that are going to take on a greater role by actively participating on various ICANN committees. I have seen and heard others talk about respective groups bickering over other groups. So getting ALL voices to the table is a good thing.
In all this was a very successful venue for all conferences. While the EGENI conference was more regionally and IGF focused, the conference pulled in around 100 people, the Domainer Meeting, more European-centric, attracted over 300 people. As for the ICANN meeting, this was ICANN’s largest meeting with approximately 1,500 in attendance.
The three things I pulled from ICANN’s conference were:
1). Additional TLDs are on the way. The process is being defined and applications, at the time of this conference, should start being accepted by 2nd quarter, 2009. Yes, this may slip, but the overall feel is this will happen. The main concern voiced by conference attendees rested with security.
2). IDNs continue to progress and will become a reality. Progress is being made.
3). Reaching out to businesses. ICANN’s new effort is to reach out to the business community. Reaching out not only ensures the voices of the business community are heard, it allows the business community to hear what is coming, how they will be impacted and why changes are important. The item at the top of my mind is to help businesses understand the need for converting from IPv4 to IPv6.
As for the EGENI conference the main things I took away from this conference were:
1). As the European Union continues to develop, their needs can differ from those of the US as the EU has a common interest and culture difference from the US; so it is important to ensure the EU is heard. The EU has an initiative known as “E2010” where by the year 2010 education and healthcare will be able to use the Internet to enhance reaching out to the public. With this come challenges such as the need for the protection of:
* Children
* Personal data
* Data protection
2). The various ISOCs (Internet Societies) provide a way for the public to provide their input; with the ISOCs providing input to the political level. In other words, the political level is wanting to get more involved in raising the EU’s concerns regarding Internet development.
3). What do you do with a society that utilizes their mobile phones to a greater extent than people in the US? What about the need to reach out to various devices on the net that are not PC-based; hence a pressing need for migration for IPv4 to IPv6.
4). New TLDs will be coming out with the new TLDs being able to provide a strong focus on culture, heritage, and economic development for the respective TLD regions, whether a specific TLD covers a city, the region of a country, or a region that encompasses multiple countries due to a common economic region.
You can learn more about the EGENI conference by viewing the session notes.
So to wrap up this post, again I get back to how great it was to see the confluence of people from the various groups (ICANN policy/standards, Internet governance, Domainer) in one place. I hope this confluence continues as “continued” dialogue is healthy and committee participation from the various groups is the best way in moving forward. Perhaps someday “confluence” will be replaced with “convergence”. In the mean time, as mentioned earlier, “Getting ALL voices to the table is a good thing.”
July 10th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
I recently attended the Domain Roundtable conference. As with my attendance last year I walked away impressed with the entrepreneurial spirit of people coming together to constructively define and grow an entire industry. With last year’s attendance of the conference I approached the conference expecting to see the wild west of the Internet. What I found was basically no difference in working with general entrepreneurs.
The key word I heard over and over was, “Development”. “Development, Development, Development!”
Parking of domain names, while a way for domainers to monetize their domains, is not necessarily the best use of domains because:
1). Visitors are not receiving that much value from a “traditionally” parked page.
2). Visitors are recognizing a “traditional” parked page and thus getting more irritated and seeing less value.
3). Development means more than simply parking a page.
As stated by Dan Warner, “Something that is rare AND valuable equals sustainable”
The basic principles of domain development include:
1). Obtaining unique and “clean” assets of domains.
2). Provide content that is original.
3). Develop community around your respective domain.
Development means finding a way to provide better, more relevant content that brings value to the visitor. Value means creating something where visitors to a particular domain will want to return. Return means value and value means return. So whether that is development through continually working to find a continual means for providing “relevant” content or developing partnerships with other organizations that may benefit the visitor, suddenly the definition of “development” looks like the more traditional forms of an entrepreneur developing and growing their business.
One of the speakers at the conference was Matt Cutts of Google. Matt’s basic recommendations to the Domainer community were:
1). If a user lands on a page, will that user be happy? Does the page match the topic the user was expecting? Is the content for the visitor relevant?
2). How much unique content might there be when compared with other sites? In other words, is your content stale or is it constantly being updated?
3). Bottom line, for the visitor, does your site add value and is the content unique?
Another speaker at the conference was Gary Kremen. Gary may be most notable to some through his ownership, and subsequent legal battles over sex.com. However, Gary also took one of his domain names, “Match.com” and developed this into a complete business. The basic nuggets of information I took from Gary’s talk were:
1). Is there a business that can be created using a domain that is more than the domain name it was built upon? From my perspective, Match.com is a classic example of this.
2). Are you creating other intellectual property along the way as you develop your domain name(s)?
3). Think about how this business will solve a problem and use this to develop your business plan.
Gary added another element to his discussion that I had never heard before at other domain conferences I had attended and that was “VCs” – Venture Capitalists. This gets into the whole discussion of should you continue to bootstrap what you are doing or does the next step of development require having an outside investment strategy and how outside investment can affect the company you are developing.
While I have the extreme benefit of talking with people across the entire ICANN “community”, I hear peoples’ perspective on what they think of ALL “domainers”. However, when attending a Domain Roundtable conference where speakers come from outside of the “traditional” sense of the Domainer community, I continue to respect the fact that:
1). An industry has formed with little guidance or direction.
2). This industry is trying to provide its own guidance for the betterment of the industry.
3). This industry is more than simply acquiring domain names, sitting on them and later selling them for a profit.
If a Domainer is to be successful, it is simple:
1). Have a “clean” domain portfolio that does not infringe on any trademarks.
2). Trademark your domain.
3). Develop your domain so that what is developed brings value to the visitor, both through adding value and uniqueness of content.
4). Develop your domain such that it solves a problem for visitors to your site.
5). Develop your domain so that you are creating intellectual property along the way.
As such it is my personal opinion to see more of the traditional organizations starting to diversify their portfolios through acquiring their own domain portfolios.
As for the conference itself, it was held to coincide with the AdTech conference. Smart move as several who attended did so because they were able to bundle this in with their trip to AdTech. Another new thing for this conference was the addition of daily passes. While attendance at the conference “appeared” light I ran into numerous attendees who took advantage of purchasing a daily pass so as to attend what was of interest to them. So while the conference as a whole did not seem to have the normal crowd, the “crowd” was there, only more strategic.
May 12th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
While leaving my hotel the other day I happened to glance at the USA Today newspaper. At the bottom of the front page was a story titled, “ChinaUSA in Internet users vaults past ”. As the story points out, the number of Chinese on the Internet hit more than 220 million by February, compared to 216 US Internet users at the end of 2007.
While US-based internet usage for 2007 had grown 53% over the following year to reach the 216 million mark, it should be noted that of the US’s 304 million people, 71% use the Internet today. China, on the other hand with it’s higher figure and strong growth rate (233 million at the end of March vs 220 million in January), only 17% of its 1.3 billion population uses the Internet. As you can see China has a LONG way to go before starting to reach a point of saturation.
Being that I was at a conference all day whose focus was on the Domaining industry, I was not able to see how much attention this story received on any of the evening news stations. I am pleased, however, that this story was not buried within the newspaper as this is a very significant story.
Last February I blogged on the concept of IDNs and the perception of IDNs being on ICANN’s fast track. So based on the fact that China has been forging ahead with the potential of “Their Own Internet” and seeing that the number of users of the Internet has surpassed that of the US is rather significant to me.
While the story came and went on the pages of USA Today, I can’t help but think of the following aspects of this milestone:
1). How distinct is China’s Internet over the Internet you and I use today and what impact might varying internets have on each other? (I am referring to the root server system.)
2). What impact will this have on the overall IDN conversation? Is China doing what works for their users and how might this impact the way a Chinese-based Internet affects application development (as highlighted in my posting on “Practical Implications Regarding ICANN’s IDN TLD Evaluation Deployment in the Root Zone”), allowing for a culturally good Internet experience as well as ICANN’s process for IDN script development?
So while China is shooting beyond the US regarding number of users on the Internet, it will be interesting to watch other countries do the same, especially when IDNs are rolling out. It will also be interesting to see how the Internet “industry”, as we know it today, may shift. It will also be interesting to see how, if any, instances or segments of the Internet may grow and operate without following any of the established policies and agreements established through ICANN, as may be the case with China.
April 23rd, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
In the March 28 issue of the New York Times there was an article titled, “Domain-Name Complaints Rise To a High Over Cybersquatting”. The story pointed out that complaints of cybersquatting were up to 2,156 in 2007; an increase of 18%.
To me, that was a large figure. However, it left me with the question of does that figure represent the whole industry or just WIPO? To confirm this I contacted WIPO to learn that the 2,156 figure quoted in the article represents the complaints being handled only by WIPO. So this tells me the number is actually higher.
When looking at ICANN’s UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) there is a list of “Approved Dispute-Resolution Service Providers”. In my conversation with WIPO I learned that of the approved dispute-resolution service providers, WIPO handles about 50% - 60% of the cases being disputed. So that means of the 2,156 complaints being handled in 2007, the real number of UDRP cases is slightly less than double, or around 4,000 complaints in 2007 alone! What this means is the approximate 4,000 complaints are the complaints being handled by ICANN’s “Approved Dispute-Resolution Service Providers”. Then we need to think about other complaints that may not be going through any of ICANN’s service providers. Anyway, for me, the number is high and signifies this is a definite issue.
This also lets me know, however, that procedures DO exist to handle such complaints; and such procedures are being exercised.
In earlier posts (“Skipping Through the Senate Bill 2661 Mine Field” and “The Opportunity Surrounding Senate Bill 2661”) I discussed, or questioned the need for the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (APCPA), introduced by Senator Snowe, other wise known as S. 2661. The bill’s title leads one to see that the bill’s title indicates the bill is geared around anti-phishing. I am all for this. In fact I received a phishing e-mail today. However, I objected, or more accurately, could not find the need to include a rather large section that addressed domain names. To me the bill feels like a fox in sheep’s clothing as the bill’s name suggests a bill against anti-phishing. Instead the bill not only discusses anti-phishing but seems to be based around the use, or misuse of domain names. What I objected to most was what I consider to be the vaguely-worded definition of what constitutes abuse. To be specific:
Section 3. Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices, (b), (2), (H).
…acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity…
So I started researching and found current procedures and laws in place today that rely on similar verbiage.
The Lanham act first enacted in 1947, says:
Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter 1, 1051, Section A-3-D.
“…to the best of the verifier’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, except that, in the case of every application claiming concurrent use…”
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 2000 (ACPA) amended the Lanham Act by adding Section 43(d). The amended language includes the following verbiage:
Section 3002, (a), (d)(1), (ii), (I)
“in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;”
ICANN’s UDRP includes:
Section 4, “a”, (i)
“your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights…”
I see the term, “confusingly similar” has been used over the decades when referring to potential trademark infringement. So I humbly eat crow. Hmmmmm…. (Add a little habanero sauce and not bad! But I digress….)
When looking at the various bills and procedures I find the following:
UDRP: If awarded to the complainant, the domain name(s) in question are transferred to the complainant. No other fines are incurred.
With the revised Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) the fines are a minimum of $1,000 with a maximum fine of $100,000.
With the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act (or S. 2661) the fines are $250 per violation with a maximum of $2,000,000. The courts would have the discretion to increase the maximum to $6,000,000.
So if I am a person who finds someone with a domain name that is “confusingly similar” to my trademarked name, I can go through the UDRP process, or some other non-ICANN approved UDRP process to have the domain name handed over to me. Once I have the domain name can I then take the former domain owner to court under the ACPA for purposes of cybersquatting to get damages up to $100,000? Once awarded my $100,000, could I then take the same former domain owner to court again under phishing abuse to go after another $2,000,000? Or would the ACPA trump the APCPA, or vise-versa?
This all seems rather inefficient and uncoordinated to me.
Through this process I have also been hearing CADNA (The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse). While I see they are all against cybersquattting, domain tasting and domain kiting, (which I am too) CADNA states its approach as follows:
“CADNA will work to educate the public, lobby the relevant agencies of jurisdiction in the United States government, and actively communicate with members of Congress. Through these activities CADNA aims to effectively exert pressure on ICANN, propose draft legislation to increase the statutory damages set forth in the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to take decisive action on abuses by domain name registrars and registrants, and work with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to introduce an international anti-cybersquatting treaty.”
Hmmmmmmm…. So while I see a button on CADNA’s home page supporting Snowe’s Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act (S. 2661), why are we not seeing a similar button regarding efforts on amending Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or ACPA? When I look at what all CADNA stands for and I read Snowe’s S. 2661, I see what CADNA is all about in S. 2661. Personally I believe it is clever that CADNA’s charter is basically spelled out in a single Federal bill.
So while cybersquatting complaints are up, while there are several avenues for complainants to pursue their case, of which most are won by the complainant, and while there is a law in place for the complainant to recover any damages, I still feel S. 2661 is a fox in sheep’s clothing.
Call a bill what the bill is about! If we need an anti-phishing bill (ooops, received another e-mail!) then let’s have a bill that addresses anti-phishing. If we need to have damages increased due to cybersquatting, then let’s amend the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to reflect the increase in damages that can be collected. It has been done once with the ACPA amending the Lanham Act so you know it can be done again. As mentioned in previous posts, I personally do not own any domain names so can not be classified as a “Domainer” – in the best or worst sense of the word. I do, however know “Domainers” who work to ensure their domain names are not infringing upon any trademarks. I know Domainers who are working to develop their domains as unique business units. I do know the Executive Director of the Internet Commerce Association who is working to ensure a code of ethics among domainers and, through experience, have noticed first hand his even-keel approach.
Bottom line? Revise S. 2661 to focus on what the bill’s title indicates; that dealing with phishing. For issues regarding domain names, continue working through established UDRP processes and, if necessary, make the appropriate modifications to the current ACPA. The number of UDRP cases handled by WIPO in 2007 alone indicated procedures are in place and being exercised.
If someone can tell me why we need another bill, such as 2661, that also covers issues regarding domain name dispute resolution when we already have established UDRP procedures as well as the ACPA, please reply to this post as I am interested in understanding the need.
April 14th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
After submitting my last post regarding Senate bill 2661 (S. 2661), I couldn’t help but feel the message was not complete. There was another element that remained to be explored.
While the bill, as is, is definitely in its infancy and, if it survives, will continue through the process with many revisions made along the way. As the bill stands today I still feel it is a bad bill and leaves room wide open for misinterpretation, taking advantage of others by the “bad seeds†of the world and money wasted on MANY lawsuits ahead.
So knowing that there still is a long road ahead, something continued to bug me about my last post. While sipping an iced-tea in one of Portland’s MANY local coffee shops, it hit me.
“OPPORTUNITY!â€
There is no doubt that people and businesses are being harmed through phishing scams. Such scams are something we all hate. However, when you read the Anti-Phishing Working Group’s December 2007 report and the Brandjacking Winter 2007 report , you will find that the phishing community is alive and active. Based on such reports I can see the basis for the bill.
However, labeling an entire community by the actions of a small few is wrong. That’s like saying all Americans are loud and arrogant. Hmmmmm….. Perhaps that was a bad example, but I think you understand what I mean.
What “opportunity†do I see with this bill? As mentioned, there is no doubt that phishing is a problem and, just like domain tasting, needs to end. However the opportunity I see is this is a chance for various organizations to come together to work “together†on providing input to this bill. In my mind I would like to see Congress work with the following consortium:
The Internet Commerce Association, or ICA.
ICANN
Registrars
Registries
The ICA clearly needs to be present as this organization provides the voice for the Domainer community.
ICANN needs to be present as it is their policies that affect the Internet community on a global basis. ICANN is currently working in conjunction with other organizations to build in the policy to squelch domain tasting.
Registrars are the interface between the registries and the Domainer community.
Registries maintain the integrity of their respective TLDs, gTLDs or ccTLDs, live by the policies developed by ICANN and work with the Domainer/registrar community.
I feel it is necessary for ALL groups to be at the table to help provide input into the crafting of this bill.
If Senate bill 2661 never makes it to a vote, or is voted down, other bills will emerge.
So while organizations are busy working in their own respective communities, the “opportunity†is there for all parties to come to the “SAME†table, roll up their sleeves and provide constructive input. This also applies to Senator Snowe’s office. It also behooves members of their respective communities to provide their respective organizations with constructive input instead of expressing frustration or simply complaining. So, if a bill is to come about, and Senate bill 2661 may be that bill, the opportunity is there to educate each other and work together to craft a good bill.
And if people are thinking about an organization needing to make the first move, let me move us all beyond that barrier by saying ICANNWiki.org, this neutral organization for the overall ICANN “communityâ€, based in a Portland State University facility, will be more than happy to provide the stage, both physically as well as virtually, for this conversation or “opportunity†to occur.
March 17th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
On February 25 of this year Senator Snowe, (R) of Maine, introduced Senate bill 2661. The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska, and Bill Nelson, (D) of Florida, is aimed at, “protecting Internet users“.
When you read the bill itself it seems pretty innocuous as it starts off talking about guarding against phishing that can result in the massive amounts of phishing e-mails we all receive. The bill states that 59,000,000 phishing e-mails are sent each day. That is STAGGERING! The bill further states that, “According to Gartner, Inc., between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.â€
However, if you keep reading what you will find are statements like, “Phishing operators utilize deceptive domain names for their schemes. They routinely register domain names that mimic the addresses of well-known online merchants, and then set up websites that can fool consumers into releasing personal and financial information.†As well as “Deceptive domain names, and the abuses for which they are used, threaten the integrity of domain name systemâ€. The bill also notes that “The World Intellectual Property Organization reported in April 2007, that the number of Internet domain name cybersquatting disputes increased 25 percent in 2006.†I couldn’t help but sense the “stage is being setâ€, but for what?
As I read the bill I find information to ensure the accuracy of the WHOIS database, meaning the information contained in WHOIS should be accurate and not contain information that hides the identities of others. OK, I get that. That makes sense, but I know that makes a portion of the domainer community nervous. (I say only a portion because I know a lot of domainers who don’t try to hide their identity.) However, when reading further I stumbled across the below verbiage in the bill:
(b) Deceptive or Misleading Domain Names-
(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to use a domain name in an electronic mail message, an instant message, or in connection with the display of a webpage or an advertisement on a webpage, if–
(A) such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity;
(B) such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that the domain name would be likely to mislead a computer user, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents of such electronic mail message, instant message, webpage, or advertisement (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).
This is certainly “interesting” as, the way I read it, the portion that reads, “such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity†opens the door for anyone to go to a domainer and say that their domain name is “confusingly similar to their name or brand nameâ€. This, despite the fact that a domain owner may have taken the steps to work with a lawyer to ensure their domain names are not conflicting with any other domains or trademarks and have, themselves, trademarked their domain name(s). This bill is SOOOOOOO open that it basically allows business owners, no matter how upstanding, or lowstanding they may be, to go to a domainer, having the domainer turn over the domain name they have purchased and developed in good faith.
After reading this bill I couldn’t help but wonder several things…..
First of all, some people look at domainers as living in the “Wild West†, heading out on their own without boundaries and being reckless. After attending various domainer conferences I know that image is false. However, I can’t help but apply that “Wild West†description to this bill. Keep in mind ICANNWiki.org is neutral and listens to the entire ICANN “communityâ€, but in reading this bill the recklessness, for lack of a better term, is fairly obvious. Is Snowe’s office reaching out and working in concert with the community to try and curb phishing activity? Is Snowe’s office working with ICANN or are they off and running on their own? Is Snowe’s office working directly with the Internet Commerce Association? Or is Snowe’s office running on their own?
Yes, there are domain tasters and there are people who try to tie up domain names that may infringe on trademarks, but from what I have learned that is far more the exception than the norm. So labeling everyone in one community based on the actions of a few is, what I feel, not what this country is about. Regarding domain tasters, the community IS taking steps to bring tasting to a halt.
One of the many things I wondered about was the jurisdiction of this bill. If passed as is, would the teeth of this bill reach beyond the US shores? In dialing into the ICANNWiki.org community I found out that the answer is probably yes. On January 1, 2007 the US joined the Council of Europe Cyber Crime treaty. The purpose of the treaty “…provides for `mutual assistance and extradition among participating nations.’ ” While 30 countries signed the treaty when created in Budapest in 2001, the number of countries currently supporting the treaty today is not easily found. Also, from a jurisdictional perspective, how might this work with, or interfere with UDRP policies that have been established in various countries. For those countries that have not signed onto the Council of Europe Cyber Crime treaty, but have an established UDRP within their country, does this bill seek to work with such UDRPs?
Getting back to the statement, “ such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entityâ€, how many times have you attempted to drive to a location only to stop and pause, thinking, “You know…. That looks familiar. Is that my destination?†With that in mind, should the same apply to land? If someone feels their land is confusingly similar to their piece of land does that mean you need to hand the title of your property over to the other person? No!
While this bill has understandably raised much concern by the community, one sage counselor in the ICANNWiki community reminded me that the bill is still in its infancy. One of the things to watch in a bill is if the bill is “partisan†or “bi-partisanâ€. Bills with a “bi-partisan†sponsorship tend to have a stronger chance of going forward. As we know, this bill has bi-partisan sponsorship. While it has been referred to the Commerce subcommittee, one should become more concerned if it winds up in either the Judiciary or Banking committees. Another good signal is to watch what is going on in the Center for Democracy & Technology site. Finally, if this bill progresses through the Senate it will not doubt receive edits like other bills. Also, a similar bill will need to make its way through the House. Bottom line is if the bill ever passes it has the opportunity go filter through both the Senate and the House, with various edits along the way before a single bill is decided upon for vote.
So, while reducing phishing is a good thing, this bill seems to be grabbing at anything associated with the “potential†of phishing. Remember the “Salem witch huntsâ€? That is what this bill reminds me of as it is lumping and affecting large groups of people who should not have to bear the “Scarlet Iâ€.
March 12th, 2008
DotAsia’s First Day of Landrush
By Chuck Kisselburg
I recently had a brief chat with Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia regarding DotAsia’s first day of Landrush. There was no doubt why Edmon was upbeat as DotAsia reported 266,663 applications received on the first day of DotAsia’s Landrush program. 266,663!!!! That is double what Edmon was expecting! This brings the total of applications received for domain names since Pre-Sunrise, Sunrise, the Pioneer Programs and the first day of Landrush up to 298,861 applications received.
Since fall of last year I have been hearing a small but persistent undercurrent from the domainer community that the domains will mainly be from North America and Europe, thus “basically†nullifying the true reason of DotAsia; being a gTLD that will happen to foster business and development within the rather expansive and diverse Asian region. While 40% came from North America and 24% came from Europe, over 35% of the applications came from Asia. Rough calculations show that over 93,000 applications were received from Asia alone – ON THE FIRST DAY! With respect to that small amount of skepticism, my thought is imagine the number of Asia-region-based applications that would have arrived had IDNs been in use. As mentioned in a previous blog post of mine, “.asia†IS a social networking goldmine; especially with the eventual rollout of IDNs.
So my congratulations to continued success of the DotAsia team. You can read more about DotAsia’s first day of Landrush through their recent press release.
February 25th, 2008
Previous Posts