Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
- To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
- From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 01:09:56 -0400
Oh, just to be clear, when I say:
"link to an active "base" domain name"
I don't mean a HTML redirection link. I just mean something in the
WHOIS record of the domain name that says something like:
"This domain name, wwwexample.com, is a defensive registration for the
active base domain name example.com."
And then the WHOIS record for the domain name would show no
nameservers, the domain itself would not resolve, and perhaps there'd
be a special EPP status code indicating it is defensive. Thus it'd be
eligible for lower fees.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:03 AM, George Kirikos<icann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rick,
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Rick Anderson wrote:
>> What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it
>> probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists
>> TMholders. The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a
>> great plan.
> Thanks for the feedback. One method to refine the concept further is
> to truly limit things to defensive registrations (as opposed to
> speculative registrations at lower cost) through a link to an active
> "base" domain name (one that does resolve). For example, the domain
> typo generator at DomainTools.com spits out a number of matches for
> Let's say that the "base" domain name is declared to be Verizon.com.
> Then if Verizon wanted to own verizoln.com or verizom.com, but the
> traffic from those domains wasn't worth $7/yr to Verizon (i.e. it
> doesn't "pay" for them resolve), they could pay say $3/yr to register
> them but have no nameservers, at the same time linking it to
> Verizon.com. They could do the same for domains in other TLDs,
> declaring them "defensive registrations" that all link to one base
> domain that does resolve.
> One could develop an algorithm to test whether a domain that is
> declared as "defensive" is similar enough to that base domain name to
> qualify (e.g. a certain number of common characters, common typos like
> wwwdomain.com, etc.). An algorithm probably wouldn't capture 100% of
> defensive registrations, but it could probably reduce costs for a
> healthy fraction of them.
> There could also be a function to list all defensive registrations
> (with no nameservers) for a given base domain, to make abusers easier
> to bring to justice. For example, let's say someone other than Disney
> did own wwwdisney.com and used that as their active "base" domain for
> speculative but low traffic domains (which didn't generate $7/yr worth
> of traffic) such as wwwdisney.org. A markholder would be able to more
> easily capture the entire set of typos that didn't resolve (and thus
> were registered under the lower cost system) in one action because of
> that linkage.
>> As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is
>> to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to
>> non-resolve). That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go
>> to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost),
>> whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination.
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If the domain doesn't generate $7/yr
> worth of traffic, a markholder might still keep the domain registered
> in order to avoid facing the UDRP and legal costs of $5,000+ if the
> domain is abused by someone else. If these marginal names could face
> lower carrying costs (say $3/yr instead of $7/yr), that cost savings
> could be dramatic, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per
> Registry operators might not be happy by the loss of "fully priced"
> defensive registration fees that they're used to currently, but that's
> not a suitable business model to begin with. Depending on the
> elasticity of demand, ironically registries might even actually
> increase the number and total revenues from defensive registrations,
> as the lower price for domains deemed "defensive" would actually
> increase the total number registered and possibly the total
> profitability for the registry.
> George Kirikos