Men Free Blog

Domain operator VeriSign has been granted a patent that describes a way to resolve unregistered domains to a parked page for advertising or registration purposes. Ironically, however, VeriSign agreed years ago not to use technology that would do just that, so the patent seems likely to be used as another revenue-generator, as it gives VeriSign the ability to collect licensing fees and pursue legal action against others that have implemented similar “services.”…
The patent, “Methods and devices for responding to request for unregistered domain name to indicate a predefined type of service,” describes a way to pick out a unique identifier (a specific URL, for example, or the type of request) and provide information that corresponds to that identifier. “[S]ervices and information can be provided for a requested URL that includes a domain name that has not been explicitly registered with the DNS name server computers,” reads the patent abstract, indicating that it is meant to target users that are “lost” online.

The patent was originally filed in October of 2000 by then-eNic CEO and CTO Brian Cartmell and Jothan Frakes. eNic was then purchased by VeriSign in 2001, putting the application into VeriSign’s possession. In September of 2003, VeriSign launched SiteFinder, which served as a wildcard DNS entry that would catch attempts to load any top-level .com or .net domain that didn’t exist (either because they weren’t registered yet, or because they were mistyped). Users would then be forwarded to a parked page that had affiliate links, information about VeriSign products, and plenty of ads. Clearly, the patent covers VeriSign’s intended use of Sitefinder.

VeriSign, of course, passed off SiteFinder as an attempt to make the web more user-friendly. Critics, however, were quick to call the company on its perceived abuse of power by not only capitalizing on lost users, but attempting to become the registrar of every single yet-to-be-registered top-level domain on the Internet. VeriSign resisted requests by ICANN to halt the practice, but less than a month later, ICANN issued an advisory demanding that VeriSign remove the wildcard because it “considerably weakened the stability of the Internet, introduced ambiguous and inaccurate responses in the DNS, and has caused an escalating chain reaction of measures and countermeasures that contribute to further instability.”

VeriSign turned off Sitefinder soon thereafter, but fought back with a lawsuit against ICANN in 2004 for overstepping its authority. Parts of the lawsuit were dismissed, and VeriSign eventually agreed in a settlement not to use the service.

So what can VeriSign do with its newly-granted patent now? Well for one, it can slap smaller companies that have been using similar services with royalty fees. A number of ISPs in the US have either tested or implemented DNS redirection services on a smaller scale—this list includes Time Warner/Roadrunner, Cox, Earthlink, Charter, and Verizon. OpenDNS also redirects mistypes and nonexistent domain requests to a search results page that has sponsored links as part of its DNS services. Surely, most (if not all) of these applications would fall under VeriSign’s patent, so we’ll have to see whether VeriSign plans to use the patent to collect revenues from mistyped URLs in lieu of being able to do so directly.

Further reading:
Found via Slashdot: VeriSign Granted a Patent Covering SiteFinder
VeriSign receives SiteFinder patent
Source: Verisign Patent Application & various online reports - DomainNews Chief Editor - May 8th, 2008 

Written by Chief Editor , Thursday, 08 May 2008 
Is ICANN planning on relocating? That question was asked by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell and ranking member Joe Barton, joined by 14 other colleagues who sent an official letter to Commerce Secretary Gutierrez on Tuedsay.

In that letter they started out by praising ICANN’s continued oversight of the international entity charged with administering the Internet. The lawmakers asked the Commerce Department to comment on the possibility of an overseas relocation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which as we all know, is currently based in Marina Del Ray, California.

Rumors have swirled in recent years that some foreign government and industry stakeholders want ICANN’s headquarters to move to Brussels, Belgium.

The US goverment concerns comes as ICANN’s leaders gradually try to transition the coordination of technical functions of the Web to the private sector. “Any change that threatens the important U.S. role in promoting U.S. commercial and free speech principles on the Internet can only hurt the consumers and businesses that count on this network every day,” they wrote.

The letter requests a response to a handful of questions about ICANN’s future within two weeks time. While ICANN remains the “best option for reaching consensus in an increasingly divided world,” members said the organization should ensure transparency and promote greater accountability in its operations. ICANN constituents meet several times a year and their next meeting is scheduled for June 22-26 in Paris, France, right after the first Domainer Meeting Conference in Europe.

If you ask me, this is just the beginning of a much bigger struggle the US goverment is going to have to answer to as the world continues to unite and demands that ICANN should be an independent organization governed by the United Nations intensify. We will make sure we follow this story closely here on DomainNews.com as it develops.

Source: Written by Chief Editor - DomainNews.com - May 8th, 2008
 

Written by David Goldstein , Friday, 02 May 2008 
Canada’s Globe and Mail has what can only be described as a silly article on why many Canadians register a .com address rather than a .ca address. Yes, sure .ca is 17th in the global rankings for domain names, but like it or not, CIRA, the .ca registry, has a Canadian presence requirement that means not any Tom, Dick or Harriet from anywhere in the world can register a domain name. Sure, this means total domain registrations will be lower. Canada’s Globe and Mail has what can only be described as a silly article on why many Canadians register a .com address rather than a .ca address. Yes, sure .ca is 17th in the global rankings for domain names, but like it or not, CIRA, the .ca registry, has a Canadian presence requirement that means not any Tom, Dick or Harriet from anywhere in the world can register a domain name. Sure, this means total domain registrations will be lower.

And Canada is just, well, across the border and just like Canadians love big American cars, it seems going by the tone of this article, they also love its generic TLD of .com.

And it’s not only Canadians who are urged buy a .com domain name. Registrants are often urged to get a .com name as it will rank higher in a search engine and you get the more internet users typing in a domain name.

Anyway, it’s not a cultural cringe that leads to many Canadians buying a .com name, it just makes sense sometimes. And sometimes old habits die hard. I don’t know, but maybe .ca names had more restrictions on them in times past, making it easier to buy a .com name. And maybe .ca names were once more expensive.

Anyway, if you must read this cringe making article in The Globe and Mail, see www.theglobeandmail.ca/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080501.wgtwebseven0501/BNStory/Technology/home. But don’t tell anyone you did

Written by David Goldstein , Friday, 02 May 2008 
This paper was written by Jacqueline D. Lipton and appeared in the Washington and Lee Law Review
Abstract: … This article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity tort.
This paper was written by Jacqueline D. Lipton and appeared in the Washington and Lee Law Review

Abstract:  When the Oscar-winning actress, Julia Roberts, fought for control of the domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law. Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. Additionally, commentators have questioned recent expansions of trademark law in the Internet context.

This article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity tort.

Unlike trademark law, this tort is aimed at the protection of individual names and likenesses. It has not been utilized much in cyberspace largely because of time, cost, and jurisdictional disadvantages of litigation as opposed to the quicker and cheaper, but trademark-based, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (”UDRP”). This article suggests the creation of a new personal domain name dispute resolution policy (”PDRP”) that combines the procedural advantages of the UDRP with the theory underlying the right of publicity tort.

To read the article in full, see ssrn.com/abstract=1124596.

 

Written by David Goldstein , Friday, 02 May 2008 
On 31 March, 2008, the dotCoop Board of Managers approved two new policies to define broad support by dotCoop for pricing and domain use to encourage domain registration in the .coop domain.

On 31 March, 2008, the dotCoop Board of Managers approved two new policies to define broad support by dotCoop for pricing and domain use to encourage domain registration in the .coop domain.

The policies approved by the Board were:
- .Coop Domains Bulk Registration Offer Policy
- .Coop Domain Name Category Policy

The .Coop Domains Bulk Registration Offer Policy openly encourages potential registrants and registrars to propose bulk pricing programs to encourage .coop registrations that may be affected by pricing.

The .Coop Domain Name Category Policy allows eligible co-operatives to submit proposals to .coop to allow registration and/or reservation of domain names with a particular structure. This will support co-operatives that want to work with an entire group of domains to create consumer recognition of the name structure. Proposals will be submitted to dotCoop but domain registration will continue to be with the dotCoop accrediated registrar of choice of the co-op submitting a proposal.

Both of these policies seek to support innovative proposals from cooperatives seeking to create additional registrations in the .coop TLD that can take advantage of the many names that are still available in the .coop namespace.

Please see the complete policies below and contact us with your proposals!

DotCooperation LLC
.Coop Domains Bulk Registration Offer Policy

1.    Purpose

DotCooperation would like to explore the possibility of marketing initiatives involving bulk registrations that could assist the cooperative community in exploring different business ideas and concepts.

2.    Scope

This policy applies to all eligible organizations as defined in the dotCoop Charter
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/appendix-S01jul07.htm#part1) and to their selected registrars.

3.    Policy

DotCooperation LLC would like to encourage registration of large numbers of .coop domain names by eligible cooperatives and cooperative organizations by allowing for special pricing for these organizations and their selected registrars.

Consistent with the marketing initiatives of other gTLD registries, both sponsored and unsponsored, dotCoop believes that exploring the marketing potential associated with bulk registration pricing could offer benefits to the cooperative community as a whole.

Tiered pricing can be proposed in, but is not limited to, the following levels:
Less than 1,000 Domain Name Years
From 1,000 – 5,000 Domain Name Years
Greater than 5,000 Domain Name Years

DotCooperation LLC
.Coop Domain Name Category Policy

1.    Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to identify the requirements for eligible co-operatives to propose the reservation of specific categories of domain names so that a predictable name structure can be established.

2.    Scope

This policy applies to all eligible organizations as defined in the dotCoop Charter (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/appendix-S-01jul07.htm#part1) and to their selected registrars.

3.    Policy

DotCooperation LLC recognizes the need for co-operative businesses to clearly identify particular name structures to facilitate business development efforts. These structures will enable Internet users to recognize these name structures to more effectively identify particular sites within the .coop domain.

Eligible cooperatives may submit proposals to DotCooperation LLC to establish particular domain name categories with the following restrictions and requirements:

1.    The domain name category must not conflict with existing general domain registrations or existing domain name categories
2.    The proposing cooperative must explicitly agree to the dotCoop Dispute Resolution Policy in case of any domain name registration conflict with the domain name category
3.    The proposing cooperative must define the exact structure of the domain name category
4.    The proposing cooperative must define the exact set of domain names that would be initially reserved
5.    The proposing cooperative must define the process and timetable for the registration of the individual domain names within the category
6.    The proposed domain name category cannot require any changes to the registry system that would require any changes by existing registrars to continue registration and support of new or existing .coop domains

DotCoop will evaluate all Domain Name Category proposals as quickly as possible. All decisions concerning acceptance or rejection of a Domain Name Category proposal are at the discretion of dotCoop.

If a proposal is accepted, dotCoop will then enter into specific negotiations with the proposing cooperative to define all aspects of the implementation associated with supporting the proposed Domain Name Category resulting in a mutually agreeable contract.

 This announcement is also available from the .coop website at www.nic.coop/news/display.asp?id=123.
 

Written by David Goldstein , Friday, 02 May 2008 
Responding to some .cn domain holder’s complaints regarding the difficulty in transferring domain names, China Internet Network Information Center issued a circular to each registrar clarifying that transfers are free. Responding to some .cn domain holder’s complaints regarding the difficulty in transferring domain names, China Internet Network Information Center issued a circular to each registrar clarifying that transfers are free.

Domain holders can freely alter the registrant details providing the domain name was initially registered more than 60 days ago and it is 15 days before the registration expires.

CNNIC also made it clear domain holders should not have to pay a fee for any such amendments.

Once any amendment to registration information is completed, the registrar is obliged to forward a transfer password within three working days after receiving the application to change the details. Once any changes are completed, the new holder of the domain name shall pay one year’s registration, extending the registration of the domain name by one year.

More information on registering .cn domain names is available from cnnic.cn.

To register a .cn domain name, check out AsiaDNS here.
 

Written by David Goldstein , Friday, 02 May 2008 
Randy Bush has posted to the Nanog mailing list asking voting members of Nominet to help keep “the greedy domainer slime” off the Nominet Board of Directors reports Bret Fausett on his NameBrief blog.
Randy, a champion of the internet, especially in the developing world, is unhappy that three domainers are standing for the board of Nominet with a pledge to lower the .uk registration fees and hence help run down the piles of cash Nominet wishes to keep “for educational or research initiatives.”

As Bret says, there is good and bad in this and there is greed on both sides. As Bret notes, the sitting Nominet board wants to in effect tax registrants for amounts Nominet knows to be in excess of what it costs to run the registry and redistribute to help advance the internet, while domainers believe individual registrants should decide what to do with the excess funds.

Bret’s posting is available on his NameBrief website at namebrief.com/content/view/29/1.
 
 

Written by Chief Editor , Friday, 02 May 2008 
 
The GNSO Council approved a resolution to recommend to the Board a modification of the ICANN bylaws that would permit electronic absentee voting in certain circumstances in order to allow Council members who are absent from Council meetings to vote.

Currently, a member of the Council is unable to vote on an issue when absent from the Council meeting at which the vote occurs.

The Council found that this not only disenfranchises members from opportunities to vote, but also, disenfranchises the constituencies they represent.

In drafting the resolution, the GNSO considered carefully the way in which it operates today, and produced a report entitled, “Draft GNSO Council Request to the Board to enable full enfranchisement of the GNSO Council’s voting responsibilities.” The report examines closely how the Council typically deliberates prior to initiating a vote on policy matters, and concludes that allowing for absentee voting would enhance participation by enfranchising absent voters by providing a means for absent members to vote electronically.

The public is invited to comment on this recommendation before consideration by the Board.

Source: ICANN Press Release - April 30th, 2008
 

Written by Chief Editor , Friday, 02 May 2008 

The GNSO Council is considering the issue of “domain tasting”, a term used to describe the case when someone registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the name is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept.
If not, the current “add grace period” (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned within the AGP. ICANN staff prepared an Issues Report in June 2007 and subsequently a GNSO working group published an Outcomes Report in October 2007. The GNSO Council decided on 31 October 2007 to launch a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting. An Initial Report was produced for public comment, outlining the policy development process, possible actions that might be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions. Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report (posted 8 February) for GNSO Council review and action.

Members of the Council subsequently drafted this motion to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion.

The GNSO Council will consider public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the draft motion and incorporate them into a further draft for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April meeting.

Source: ICANN Announcement - May 1st, 2008
 

Written by Chief Editor , Friday, 02 May 2008 
Most recently notified WIPO Domain Name Decisions between April 29th and May 2nd, 2008. As you can see, we now have the first chinese character set transfer decisions:

 moment.ro
> Complaint denied
Chinese Domain Names
阿玛尼.com
阿玛尼.net
> Transfer

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0350.html
ticketmastery.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0336.html
joinnutrisystem.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0245.html
windwatch.org
> Complaint denied
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0220.html
newscorp-wallstreetjournal.com
newscorpaustralia.com
newscorpcareers.com
newscorpenergy.com
newscorpinvestorrelations.com
newscorpjobs.com
newscorpmagazines.com
newscorpnewspapers.com
newscorporation-wallstreetjournal.com
newscorppressreleases.com
newscorptelevision.com
newscorpwallstreet-journal.com
wallstreetjournal-newscorporation.com
wallstreetjournalnewscorp.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0219.html
t-mobile-airtime.com
t-mobile-card.com
t-mobile-cards.com
t-mobile-fillup.com
t-mobile-minutes.com
t-mobile-mobile.com
t-mobile-payasyougo.com
t-mobile-payg.com
t-mobile-pin.com
t-mobile-pins.com
t-mobile-prepaid.com
t-mobile-recharge.com
t-mobile-refill.com
t-mobile-reload.com
t-mobile-reup.com
t-mobile-topoff.com
t-mobile-topup.com
t-mobile-units.com
tmobile-card.com
tmobile-cards.com
tmobile-fillup.com
tmobile-minutes.com
tmobile-mobile.com
tmobile-payasyougo.com
tmobile-payg.com
tmobile-pin.com
tmobile-pins.com
tmobile-prepaid.com
tmobile-recharge.com
tmobile-reload.com
tmobile-reup.com
tmobile-togo.com
tmobilepayg.com
tmobilereup.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/dnl2008-0004.html
bza.nl
> Complaint denied
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/dau2008-0004.html
emirates.com.au
> Complaint denied
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0296.html
t-mobile-de.net
t-online-de.net
t-onlinecom.net
t-onlinenet.com
t-onlines.net
tmobile-de.com
tmobile-de.net
tmobilede.com
tmobilede.net
tonline-de.com
tonline-de.net
tonlinecom.net
tonlinenet.com
tonlinenet.net
tonlines.net
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0274.html
escada-campaign.org
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0258.html
foever21.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0069.html
trygpcbruger.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/dau2008-0002.html
i-topfield.com.au
i-topfield.net.au
topfield-australia.com.au
topfield.com.au
topfield.net.au
> Complaint denied, transfer in part
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0378.html
arla-russia.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0240.html
nourella.com
nourella.info
nourella.net
nourkrin.info
nourkrin.net
slendernight.com
> Complaint denied
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0221.html
amanganiresort.com
> Complaint denied
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0142.html
immup.net
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0141.html
immup.com
> Transfer
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-0106.html
aidatravel.com
> Transfer
Search WIPO UDRP decisions by indexed terms, domain name, or case number: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview

Source: WIPO Domain Dispute Decisions submitted to DomainNews.com between April 29th & May 2nd, 2008