The ICANNblog

Skipping Through The Senate Bill 2661 Mine Field.

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.”

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 system”. 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 set”, 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 name”. 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 “community”, 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 entity”, 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-partisan”. 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 hunts”? 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 I”.

3 comments March 12th, 2008

“Go East, Young Man!” Landrush is Very Strong!

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.

Add comment February 25th, 2008

IDNs on the…. “Fast Track”?

By Chuck Kisselburg

With ICANN’’s conference in New Delhi behind us now (February 10th – 15th) the topic of IDNs was one of the hot topics of this conference. In fact, New Delhi was a great place to showcase the progress of IDNs for several reasons.

1). India has 22 “official” languages.
2). India is part of a dynamic region, a region with MANY languages (portions of the Middle East, Southern Asia as well as Southeast Asia.). Not only does this region support a large number of varied languages, it has an even greater number of diverse cultures.

Being that IDNs will prove to have a significant impact to the whole global Internet community, my next couple of posts will focus around IDNs and what it means to members of the ICANN “community”. As such I have asked a couple of members of our “community” about their thoughts on the subject.

Through my previous writings you know that I am keenly in favor of IDNs since I see the value this can bring to the local “community”. In other words, I see IDNs bringing a whole new social aspect to users of the Internet, helping to increase this global community. While some feel IDNs are a way for registrars, and ICANN, finding a way to obtain more money, and others feel IDNs dilute the very reason of the Internet, that being bringing people together, what I appreciate most about IDNs is the impact this will have in preserving cultures. Who better to be aware of the many cultures of this globe than this community of ours?

Then there are applications. Will applications be IDN “aware”? For more information on this, please visit my previous blog post on practical implications of IDNs.

I approached my first ICANN conference in LA with great enthusiasm about IDNs. I had a great time meeting members of this global community and enjoyed listening to what they had to say. When it came to IDNs, however, it is an understatement to say I received an ear full, especially when talking about IDNs being on ICANN’s “fast track”.

The topic of IDNs is not new. In fact, this is something people within our global community have been working towards for years. There is no doubt that much needs to be considered when moving forward with IDNs, but on the “fast track”? At the LA conference ICANN was demoing concepts of how IDNs can work. This is not a fast track?

As mentioned earlier, when I talked with people at the conference (regular attendees as well as sitting committee members) I received an earful about the topic of “IDNs” and “fast track”. It seems the same word kept coming up in each conversation: “China”.

What I learned was China has been working on an initiative to bring Internet connectivity to as many residents of China as possible – even down to the small towns throughout the country. When you think of China’s population, our global online community will thus be expanding at an unprecedented rate. What impact would this have on the stability of the root servers? Hmmmmm…… In fact, as I continued to listen to those at the LA conference, China was moving forward, even if it meant they would manage and own their own root servers, with or without ICANN’s involvement. So it appears that what “fast track” movement on IDNs we have seen from ICANN appears to be due to China’s initiative and progress. If China moves forward on its own with its own root server(s) would it send today’s root servers into a state of imbalance? What if China refuses to sign ICANN’s “Mutual Responsibilities Agreement” outlining mutual responsibilities on the operation of root servers; as ICANN recently entered into with the Internet Systems Consortium? What impact would this have on ICANN if China moved forward on its own and operated a version of the Internet that was not under the authority of ICANN? What would this do to ICANN and mean for the current global online community?

2 comments February 19th, 2008

Domainer Industry Alive and Thriving at T.R.A.F.F.I.C.

By Chuck Kisselburg

ICANNWiki.org

Last week I attended T.R.A.F.F.I.C. East, held just north of Miami. The brainchild of Rick Schwartz and Howard Neu the conference was very well attended by domainers, parking firms, registrars and other companies from around the globe. While this is T.R.A.F.F.I.C.’s ninth conference, the success of this conference continues to underline the need for organized conferences for this segment of the Internet industry. New to the family is John Epp, T.R.A.F.F.I.C.’s new Executive Director.

As with my blog after the Domain Roundtable, this conference was made up of a solid group of entrepreneurs.

The format of T.R.A.F.F.I.C. continues to be seminars with industry experts along with healthy amounts of time set aside for networking and developing relationships/partnerships. The conference ended with an auction of domains.

In attending the sessions and talking with people during each of the networking events, I heard a couple of themes:

1). Transparency

2). Development

3). Code of ethics

4). Representation

1). Transparency: There appears to be a growing need within the domainer community for there to be greater transparency with the parking companies. The reason behind this is as Google and Yahoo have driven down the costs associated with advertising clicks, owners of parked domains are, on an average, seeing decreasing revenues on their investments. The only thing this points to are the parking companies and how much money might be staying with these companies. As such parking companies are seeing the need for becoming more transparent regarding costs associated with managing parked domains.

2). Development: Almost every domainer at the conference wishes to develop, where possible, their domains. Realistically it will be difficult for a domainer to develop all of their domains as it takes time and resources to develop even one domain. Think of development as creating and executing a business plan. Also note that while some may think of a domainer as owning huge amounts of domain names, in truth there are domainers present who own a small number. However, everyone sees the value of developing their domains. True, it does increase the value of their domain, but people really want to utilize their domains where they are actually providing value to the end user.

I had the pleasure of talking with quite a few people at this conference and found those in attendance spanned the gamut of domaining and development. On one extreme I talked with one person who is all about domain tasting. He “tastes” anywhere from 35,000 to 40,000 domains a day. On the other extreme a former CEO, who has a small portfolio of domains, wishes to create a full blown business with each domain. With the exception of the one domain taster in attendance, everyone wanted to develop their domains as much as possible. I also heard LOUD AND CLEAR that people are really against the concept and practice of domain tasting.

3). Code of ethics: As this community continues to evolve, domainers, and the organizations that support them, feel they have been tainted by the activity of a minority, and that deals with “tasting”, “kiting” and “cybersquatting”. There is a strong current to help further define this community through the establishment of standards as well as a code of ethics. This means that not only should there be a code of ethics for domainers, there should also be a code of ethics for registrars and parking companies, with the goal being to set the standard as well as weed out those who don’t “pass the grade”.

4). Representation: There is a strong undercurrent that those of this community are not listened to by ICANN. When ever I ask a simple question about this I can usually get blasted with a cadre of examples. You can tell the frustration level is quite high. There is work to be done, but I strongly feel that with open communication ICANN and the domainer community can work together. Aside from ICANNWiki being able to provide a platform for communication among those who fall within the overall ICANN community, the Internet Commerce Association, or the ICA, has gained heavy support from the various groups attending T.R.A.F.F.I.C. to be the official association to work with ICANN to ensure the domainer community is represented and heard. Personally speaking, I see the need for ICANN to have representation at each of these domainer conferences as this can only help continue the conversations and mutual education.

For those reading this blog who don’t live within the domainer’s world, here are a couple of blogs to view:

Frager Factor

Conceptualist.com

Seven Mile

Ron Jackson’s Blog

Whizzbangsblog.com

Rick’s blog

Jay Westerdal’s blog

The keynote speaker to the conference was Steve Forbes. Steve’s speech centered around the entrepreneurial spirit and how such spirit created turbulence over the centuries, however, each time such entrepreneurs help define the industry. The domainer community is in such a space where they are working in a world that is still very young, helping to create and shape the industry.

One of the “Ah-Ha” moments for me was hearing where one organization, who has a sizeable domain portfolio, found it best to “park” their domains due to the “traditional” way the financial world views the domainer world. In other words, investors don’t look at the “value” of what developed domains can bring. Instead investors look at the historical data of what domains have sold for as well as what money the domains are bringing in today. Thus, when working with the financial world, it appears best to park domains instead of develop the domain.

As mentioned earlier, T.R.A.F.F.I.C. continues to grow, thus showing the need for such events. It was mentioned today that Fabulous.com will be the first organization to be a licensee of T.R.A.F.F.I.C. and is now slated to hold a T.R.A.F.F.I.C. conference in Australia in November of 2008.

1 comment October 17th, 2007

Domain Name Alliance Registry Formed.