June 21, 2006 4:00 AM PDT
Perspective: ICANN needs to clamp down on domain name abuse
See all Perspectives
This question is being quietly debated by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)--the Net's keeper of the all-important addressing system--which is meeting June 26-30 in Marrakech, Morocco.
This database, known as "Whois," contains names, contact information and some technical data for every registrant of a domain name. Under ICANN's current structure, all accredited registrars--the companies approved to provide domain name registration services--are required to collect this data and make it publicly available through the Whois system.
Unrestricted access to Whois is essential for companies fighting to protect their brands--as well as their consumers--from cybersquatters, spammers, phishers and other bad actors on the Internet. Without the ability to identify who is responsible for these online frauds, businesses would be unable to assert their legal rights or, at least be unable to do so without expending an exponentially greater amount of time and money by resorting to expensive and slow investigations and legal processes.
But some believe that domain name registrants should be able to hide from the law, that they should not have to disclose themselves in the Whois database. They argue that the purpose of Whois should be limited to resolving technical, not legal, issues related to domain names and the Web sites associated with them. In response to an ICANN task force's request for comments earlier this year, some argued that the Whois database creates privacy risks by unnecessarily publicly publishing personal information. This despite the tradition of publishing this data for as long as there's been a World Wide Web; the analogies to and prevalence of similar databases such as those for trademarks and real estate; and the popularity of existing Whois privacy-protection services.
In any event, the current Whois system and domain name abuses are bad enough; ICANN surely should do nothing to make them worse. Already, it is common for domain name registrants to provide false contact information when registering domain names, and little is done to stop this fraudulent practice. The cybersquatter in one reported decision under ICANN's popular domain name dispute procedure was listed as, literally, "Sdf fdgg"--an obvious random typing of keys. Others often identify themselves only as "DOMAIN FOR SALE." And in one recent case that would be funny if it wasn't important to Morgan Stanley, the registrant of mymorganstanleyplatinum.com was listed as, simply, "Meow" and submitted a response that it was a cat--leading the arbitrator to write that the registrant "has undoubtedly attempted to mislead this panel and has provided incorrect Whois information. Such behavior is indicative of bad faith."
Domain name registrants who provide such false information clearly have an illegitimate reason to hide, not a legitimate concern for protecting their privacy. Their reasons are clearly understandable, as domain name speculation and cybersquatting have become one of the Web's most popular, and profitable, activities. The practice is no longer limited to finding a few good names. (Still, apparently there is good money to be made in such generically used domains as Diamond.com, which reportedly sold for $7.5 million last month, the same price as the legendary sale of Business.com in 1999 by a man who has since co-founded a company known as Internet REIT, which boasts a portfolio of more than 400,000 domain names.)
Today, cybersquatters have rebranded themselves as "domainers." Popular blogs and news sites track their activities. Industry conferences have sprouted to serve them. And "monetization" services--which quickly let domain name registrants turn otherwise unused, or parked, Web pages into money via affiliate links that often trade on the goodwill established by well-known brand owners--are finding a large and growing customer base of hungry and often shrewd domain name registrants.
All of these practices are costing honest businesses untold sums. The World Intellectual Property Organization reported earlier this year that the number of cybersquatting cases it handled rose 20 percent in 2005, and the disputes have involved most of the 100 largest international brands by value. Pharmaceutical, hospitality and telecommunications companies--all of which have a large number of customers who are harmed by online scams perpetrated by domain name registrants--are among the most aggressive enforcers of intellectual property online. Identifying, prioritizing and pursuing bad Web site owners already is a resource-consuming task for these companies; any new restrictions on the Whois system would only cost them and, therefore, their customers more.
The Whois problem is exacerbated by another flaw in the domain name system, a practice labeled "domain kiting" by Bob Parsons, the outspoken CEO and founder of GoDaddy.com, the largest ICANN-accredited domain name registrar. The practice (euphemistically referred to as "domain tasting" by those who engage in it) exploits an ICANN loophole by allowing sophisticated speculators to register a domain name without charge for five days. During this window, a registrant can post a monetized parking page and see whether any traffic results. If it does, the registrant may keep the domain name; if it doesn't, he'll let it go.
The problem is that these domain names, which typically contain variations of companies' well-known trademarks, are being registered in such great numbers for such short periods of time that they make it difficult for trademark owners to pursue them or to distinguish them from even more problematic Web sites. According to Parsons, more than 93 percent of the 35 million domain names registered in April were a part of this slick practice.
Who is going to stop these online shenanigans? Apparently not ICANN, which has never revoked the accreditation of a single registrar, even though some of them are among the most popular registrants of domain names. To its credit, ICANN has sought to hire a Compliance Program Specialist, recognizing that violations by registrars "can cause serious detriment to consumers and to the Internet community both directly, and indirectly, by damaging the competitive process that is crucial to a dynamic and healthy market." Yet the role has remained unfilled for more than a year.
Nothing less than the integrity of the Net is at stake here, and on these important domain name issues ICANN, innocent businesses and concerned Internet users alike should not remain neutral.
Biography
Doug Isenberg, an attorney in Atlanta and founder of GigaLaw.com, is a domain name panelist for the World Intellectual Property Organization.
See more CNET content tagged:
Whois,
domain name,
WWW,
database
guess what, it was squatted. So, I went to networksolutions.com
(remember them) and thought, I try their "wait in line service" for
expiring domains and see if the one I want finally opens up.
Guess what, NS wants you to leave a credit card on file to BID on
the domain name. One, what a RIP. Two, who in their right
mind would leave their credit card info with any of these
fraudsters.
Another sneaky tactic by these squatters. They sit by and watch
domain names get registered then snap up variants (like plural
versions and others). I had that happen recently. One of my
domains have the number "one" in it (spelled out) and I wanted
to go back and register it a few weeks later. Guess what, it has
been squatted with the "1" in front of it. I can have it for a price,
imagine that.
guess what, it was squatted. So, I went to networksolutions.com
(remember them) and thought, I try their "wait in line service" for
expiring domains and see if the one I want finally opens up.
Guess what, NS wants you to leave a credit card on file to BID on
the domain name. One, what a RIP. Two, who in their right
mind would leave their credit card info with any of these
fraudsters.
Another sneaky tactic by these squatters. They sit by and watch
domain names get registered then snap up variants (like plural
versions and others). I had that happen recently. One of my
domains have the number "one" in it (spelled out) and I wanted
to go back and register it a few weeks later. Guess what, it has
been squatted with the "1" in front of it. I can have it for a price,
imagine that.
http://domainnamewire.com/2006/06/21/conflict-of-opinion/
To the squaters, your not buying a chunk of land in florida to unload later to some big business needing a new factory. This practice should not be regarded as a valid practice based on the realestate model.
Consider trying to register your name for a family domain and finding out that it's been registered by mr "for sale" whom you can contact through the free email flavour of the week. Oh, but he's not selling the domain rights to you for 50$, he's holding out for his 7.5 million cause he saw a news report about someone else hitting the jackpot.
By all reasons of rational, justification and hell, even codes of honour one would think that they should have access to a domain name based on there family name if it's not already being used for a valid business domain (ie. Mr Loyd in utah is out of luck cause Loyd's of London already got loyd.com).
In this instance, domain naming should take a cue from patent law; if your not using the domain for a valid purpose related to the name chosen, you shouldn't retain rights too it.
You don't get to register Wal-Mart.com so you can blackmail money from Walmart. You should not be able to register a domain when your intent is to post a five line index.html displaying "for sale".
Cybersquattering describes illegal behavior outside the norm in this industry. ?Domainers? is a general term for domain investors; a perfectly legitimate, legal and respected business. And, BTW, hundreds of millions of new investment dollars are pouring into this business. So I guess you?ll soon also be labeling most of Wall Street as ?cybersquatters?.
By labeling domainers as cybersquatters, you?ve written the equivalent of ?all mothers of domainers are w*ores?. I think you should reconsider your remarks.
Cybersquattering describes illegal behavior outside the norm in this industry. ?Domainers? is a general term for domain investors; a perfectly legitimate, legal and respected business. And, BTW, hundreds of millions of new investment dollars are pouring into this business. So I guess you?ll soon also be labeling most of Wall Street as ?cybersquatters?.
By labeling domainers as cybersquatters, you?ve written the equivalent of ?all mothers of domainers are w*ores?. I think you should reconsider your remarks.
I can hear the response now, "Oh, but there are no laws against it"
We're still in the wild west of ARPA net's evolution. I'm no advicate of big brother's control but there are many places that law makers need to catch up.
After labeling people that own domains but don't do anything with them "cybersquatters", it has come to my attention that Isenberg falls into the "cybersquatter" definition he has created. Doug Isenberg of Atlanta owns CouponCodes.com, according to Whois archive records. Not only is it redirecting to a parked page, but he's also hiding behind domain privacy.
The irony kills me.
http://www.domaineditorial.com/archives/2006/06/21/on-cybersquatters-and-whois-privacy/
Rather, I've heard him express a very enlightened, methodical and pragmatic view of the world of domain names, with a calm rationale and approach.
This seems completely unlike the Doug Isenberg or the GigaLaw.com website that I have gotten to know.
This is the basis of my shock.
To clarify the term domainer... You'll hear variations on the basic definition because it is largely a tech-slang term like blogger or techie. What a person would hear pretty consistently in the different descriptions of what a 'Domainer' is, would be that a domainer is a domain enthusiast or enlightened user of domain names.
Sure, some people who are domainers allegedly use the technology in manners that are frowned upon or inappropriate for intellectual property interests or trademark holders.
Don't let the actions of that small segment of the people who have donned the moniker 'Domainer'.
Not every Domainer is an alleged cybersquatter.
There are more people who call themselves domainers that operate with integrity than there are bad players.
It is just too broad a sword to swing towards a community of enthusiasts in the domain name industry and individual registrants.
I am a domainer. I am not a cybersquatter. I don't like the label of domainer getting tainted like this.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot.
Business Law, Family Law, and Intellectual Property Law are all areas of practice in the legal profession, among many others.
Many folks spend a long number of years of study, working dilligently to obtain their opportunity to take a bar exam and hopefully pass along to become a lawyer.
There are a spectrum of focuses and specializations in the legal profession, is my point. In that same spectrum are also personal injury attorneys, DUI specialists, and other areas of focus.
Many different attorneys approach their business in many different ways. I am not an attorney. I respect most attorneys. I respect Doug Isenberg.
I know many wonderful, wise and well educated lawyers that I know operate with the deepest integrity. Lets call these honorable players.
I have also met attorneys who I am certain would steal a penny from a paper cup at a small child's lemonade stand if they thought it would benefit themselves, and probably sue the child for a paper cut they get stealing it. Lets call these dishonorable players.
Sure, there are some dishonorable, bad players, and sure, they unfortunately tarnish the profession of being a lawyer.
Should the world brand the term Lawyer in a negative light, or thrust a stigma on it?
Maybe I should ask that question differently.
My point is, for those that work hard to build integrity in their profession, does the external labelling offend?
Good show.
Those "legal processes" are a real stumbling block to businesses that want to asert their legal rights.
Coming from a lawyer, that's awfully admirable.
Events.com domain name ,takes you to your so called parked page loaded with useless link adds when typed into the addres bar.So what would you call CNET domaineer or cybersquatter??? but then again maybe when a big company does it it's called strategic diversification of assets or some other hot air line the analysts can come up with.
So CNET who your writing for, practices these "cybersqautter" practices as well or now CNET is rebranding it self as a domainer?? ,maybe you should point that out to your readers what would you call it when a large company like CNET does it what would you call them???
- store.com another PPC parked page by CNET
-
by zouzas
June 23, 2006 9:47 AM PDT
- yup CNET registrant of store.com sends you to a ppc parked page,,cybersquater or domaineer ???
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 26 Comments >>looks like CNET according to you is getting all my goodwill traffic from my site www.Store.us
wanna represent me in a cybersquatter suit against cnet??