Domainerss » Policy & Law

EFF: New Domain Takedown Bill Would Break the Internet

Andrew Allemann — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:15:28 +0000

EFF calls bill “misguided gift to a shortsighted industry”.

Electronic Frontier Foundation is weighing in on the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, and it doesn’t like what it sees.

In an analysis EFF posted online, the group says the bill would “break the Internet one domain at a time — by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites.”

EFF makes several points, some of which echo my take on the bill.

1. This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet.

2. It is designed to undermine basic Internet infrastructure.

3. COICA sends the world the message that the United States approves of unilateral Internet censorship

4. The bill’s imbalances threaten to complicate existing laws and policies.

There’s some good insight in EFF’s analysis. I’m particularly worried about #2 and #3.

Among the issues EFF draws attention to is an internet blacklist of domains not taking down but deemed in violation. EFF says domains will get on the list by a “McCarthy-like procedure of public snitching”.

Get Certified Parking Stats at DNW Certified Stats.

Yahoo Settles Lawsuit and Gets Flicker.com Domain Name

Andrew Allemann — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:27:35 +0000

Link To Full Story: Domain Name Wire

Yahoo now has Flicker.com for Flickr.com web site.

As Michael Berkens pointed out today, Yahoo now owns the domain name Flicker.com.

But this wasn’t your typical domain name sale. It was actually the culmination of year long anti-cybersquatting lawsuit brought against the Flicker.com owner AshantiPLC, which is owned in part by domain investor Sahar Sarid.

Yahoo’s lawsuit against the Ashanti was filed in July 2009. Yahoo alleged that the defendants purchased the domain name for $55,000 on eBay in July 2006. The suit chronicles what the defendants did with the name after they bought it, including showing traffic stats and citing numerous rejected offers. (They even turned down a $700,000 offer.) It also states that the defendants placed ads to camera companies on the domain name. Yahoo alleged that the defendants responded to twitter inquiries about Flicker.com being down.

You can read Yahoo’s original lawsuit here, and the defendant’s response here.

The parties entered mediation and settled the case, with Yahoo dismissing it last week. Details of the settlement were not disclosed.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Is eHelper.com a Typo of EdHelper.com?

Andrew Allemann — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:12:08 +0000

Link To Full Story: Domain Name Wire

When is a typo not a typo?

Is eHelper.com a typo of EdHelper.com? Yes, according to National Arbitration Forum panelist Sandra J. Franklin.

In a decision handed down yesterday, Franklin awarded the domain name eHelper.com to the owner of EdHelper.com. It’s a strange decision since eHelper is fundamentally different than EdHelper. It’s not a typo in the same way EdHlper.com would be, and eHelper.com is a legitimate, stand alone name for a possible web site. It’s like saying that Domains.com is a typo of iDomains.com because it omits one letter. Or Bay.com is a typo of eBay.com.

Even in the examples of typosquatting cases Franklin gives, they were all clear cut cases, whereas this is completely different. In her decision, she wrote:

Complainant argues that Respondent’s ehelper.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EDHELPER mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i). Respondent’s disputed domain name merely deletes a letter from Complainant’s mark and adds the generic top-level domain name (“gTLD”) extension “.com.” The Panel finds that the mere deletion of a letter from Complainant’s EDHELPER mark results in confusing similarity for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Guinness UDV N. Am., Inc. v. Dallas Internet Servs., D2001-1055 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2001) (finding the smirnof.com domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s SMIRNOFF mark because merely removing the letter “f” from the mark was insignificant); see also Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. v. Party Night, Inc., FA 114546 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2002) (finding that the neimanmacus.com domain name was a simple misspelling of the complainant’s NEIMAN MARCUS mark and was a classic example of typosquatting, which was evidence that the domain name was confusingly similar to the mark).

It didn’t help that the owner of eHelper.com didn’t respond to the complaint. But finding typosquatting in this case is quite a stretch. Perhaps it’s an example cut-and-paste arbitration.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Domain Tasting Down 99.7% – But It’s Coming Back

Andrew Allemann — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:42:18 +0000

Link To Full Story: Domain Name Wire

Domain tasting is down, but the registration game is merely changing.

ICANN is reporting that domain name tasting is down 99.7% since it implemented new policies to thwart it. Tasting is registering a domain name to test for traffic, and returning it within five days for a full refund if it doesn’t get enough traffic.

The new policies limited the number of domains a registrar could return for a refund. This changed the domain tasting model on its head and eliminated most tasting overnight.

But that’s about to change. It won’t exactly be tasting per se, but the days of seeing decent domain names drop and not be snapped up right away by large portfolio holders are about to end. Remember, domain tasting is a statistical game, and it used to be easy: register everything and see what made money. Now registrars are limited to how many domains they can return, so they need higher accuracy with their initial registrations. And they’re getting there, thanks to data provided by a number of sources. Domain Name Wire is aware of at least one highly reliable data source being offered to domain name registrars that will enable them to register domain names with a good understanding of exactly how much traffic they get. So hold on.

In another interesting note, ICANN’s latest report shows exception requests filed by registrars. These exception requests are filed with the registrar in an attempt to get full refunds for batches of domain names due to extraordinary circumstances. Most of the exception requests were due to fraud, but .com registry VeriSign rejected them, saying fraud is not an “extraordinary event”. One example: in July Moniker requested a refund on 6,992 domain names citing PayPal fraud and phishing. It was denied.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.

Paxfire: Enabling the Biggest Typosquatters

Andrew Allemann — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:40:47 +0000

Link To Full Story: Domain Name Wire

Typo-redirect service Paxfire adds to patent portfolio.

Today the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. patent 7,631,101 (pdf) for “Systems and methods for direction of communication traffic.” Here’s the abstract:

An Internet traffic redirection architecture is disclosed that allows for directing of trash traffic to specified sites. The system or method allows a controller, such as an ISP, to benefit from mistyped Internet addresses so that participating partners of the ISP are presented to the customer when the requests a web site that is not found or does not exist. The system decreases lost traffic by means of capturing unresolved “trash” traffic on the Internet and redirecting said traffic to a search engine partner and/or other partners.

This is actually a continuation of previous patents registered to a Virginia-based Paxfire. Paxfire is one of the bigger players enabling the world’s largest typosquatting scam, perpetrated by companies such as Verizon. When users of ISPs that use Paxfire type a non-existent web address, they are forwarded to a page full of ads. And since basically all generic domain names are already registered, that means most of these typos are basically trademark typos, or at least typos of legitimate web sites.

According to Paxfire’s web site:

…no one has been monetizing Address Bar Search and DNS Error traffic longer or more effectively, and no one delivers a better return to its partners. That is why over 35 of the world’s leading telephone companies, cable companies, traditional ISPs and other network operators have chosen Paxfire as their partner for participating in the booming search engine advertising market.

Competitors include U.K.-based Barefruit, which has a European patent for its technology, and Nominum. .Com registry VeriSign is an investor in Nominum.

Review and rate domain name parking companies at Parking Judge.