<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
- To: martinsutton@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants
- From: Michael Castello <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:27:21 -0700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders
and Legitimate Domain Registrants</title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family: 'Courier New';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts6, span.rvts6
{
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts8
{
font-size: 8pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
span.rvts9
{
font-family: 'arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #ff0000;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts10
{
font-family: 'arial';
color: #ff0000;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts11
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'arial';
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts12
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'arial';
color: #ff0000;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts13
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'arial';
color: #4f4f4f;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
a.rvts14, span.rvts14
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'arial';
color: #ff0000;
background-color: #ffffff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts15
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
font-weight: bold;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts16
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
background-color: #ffffff;
}
span.rvts17
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
span.rvts18
{
font-size: 7pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
font-weight: bold;
color: #808080;
}
span.rvts19
{
background-color: #ffffff;
}
a.rvts20, span.rvts20
{
color: #0000ff;
background-color: #ffffff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
.rvps2
{
text-align: right;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p>To all,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>I'll offer up a supposition.</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Why not have a list of restricted names/typos that can apply to all new
gTLDs and accessible from the root servers. The process to release a name/names
would fall to a trademark holder. A panel would decide and a single fee could
apply to many names/typos. I am speaking about obvious non-generic trademarks
like Kleenex, Microsoft, Xerox and not Tide or Universal unless it was
TideDetergent.TLD, UniversalStudios.TLD or UniversalRecords.TLD </p>
<p><br></p>
<p>The panels should be given directive in regards to names with generic
content and would need to rule on the distinction that long held trademark is
particular to both generics like "Tide Detergent". The judge or panel should
have a clear understanding of what has been ruled in the past UDRP decisions in
making future rulings.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Michael Castello</p>
<p>CEO/President</p>
<p>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com";>http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 2:48:39 AM, you wrote:</p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=1 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1684>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>I would agree with Rick on this one. Simply
acquiring thousands of domains is not the answer, irrespective of any cost
reductions, Considering all the variations that can be registered against a TM
(and there's always more...), imagine what that could be like with hundreds of
new gTLDs and the wider use of IDNs. Personally, I begrudge lining the coffers
of registries, registrars and ICANN, while the underlying problem remains
unresolved. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>I would prefer to look at prevention rather than cures, so
that sufficient deterrents are in place to minimise the opportunities of abuse
and infringements in the first place. Realistically, this will not be a
single solution but a multiple set of policies and tools, not all of which may
sit neatly within ICANN's remit. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Kind regards,</span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Martin</span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>Martin C SUTTON</span><span class=rvts10> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Manager, Group Fraud Risk &
Intelligence </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>Global Security & Fraud Risk</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts11>8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United
Kingdom</span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span
class=rvts12>______________________________________________________________</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Phone. +44 (0)207 991 8074</span><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Fax. +44 (0)207 992 4669</span><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Mobile. +44 (0)777 4556680</span><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Email. </span><a class=rvts14
href="mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx";>martinsutton@xxxxxxxx</a><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts13>Internet. </span><a class=rvts14
href="http://www.hsbc.com/";>www.hsbc.com</a><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span
class=rvts12>______________________________________________________________</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=599>
<p><span class=rvts15>"Rick Anderson"
<RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></span><span class=rvts16> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts16>Sent by: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx</span><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts17>Jul 07 2009 06:43</span><span
class=rvts8> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts18>Mail Size: 11321</span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
</td>
<td width=1079>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=96>
<p class=rvps2><span class=rvts17>To</span></p>
</td>
<td width=977>
<p><span class=rvts16><icann@xxxxxxxx>,
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx></span><span class=rvts8> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=96>
<p class=rvps2><span class=rvts17>cc</span></p>
</td>
<td width=977><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=96>
<p class=rvps2><span class=rvts17>Subject</span></p>
</td>
<td width=977>
<p><span class=rvts16>Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders
and Legitimate Domain Registrants</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=30>
<p class=rvps2><span class=rvts17> Entity</span></p>
</td>
<td width=125>
<p><span class=rvts16> HSBC Holdings plc - GMO</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>I know that in our firm it is not really the $7
registration fees which are the issue, even though x hundreds of registrations
it adds up. The more serious cost is the tens of thousands of dollars in
lost time while people sort these things out (usually in the legal department,
an expensive resource), without even getting into the thousands more
occasionally required for a UDRP or for the legal threats and wrangling
preceding one. It is this lost time and trouble which I believe most people
find the most aggravating and wasteful, moreso than the registration fees per
se, and regarding which the thought of mutiplying it xfold for new TLDs is
anathema. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>It sound like you are applying your creative juices in
the right direction, if you can develop a method which fairly preserves the
(bonafide) rights of TMholders with minimal hassle, then you may well
significantly lessen the reflexive antagonism re new TLDs. </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>cheers/Rick</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Rick Anderson</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>email: randerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>cell: (403) 830-1798</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>office: (403) 750-5535</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>----- Original Message -----</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx></span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Sent: Mon Jul 06 23:03:03 2009</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between
Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Hi Rick,</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Rick Anderson
wrote:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>> 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.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Thanks for the feedback. One method to refine the concept
further is</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>to truly limit things to defensive registrations (as
opposed to</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>speculative registrations at lower cost) through a link
to an active</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>"base" domain name (one that does resolve). For example,
the domain</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>typo generator at DomainTools.com spits out a number of
matches for</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>"Verizon":</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><a class=rvts20
href="http://www.domaintools.com/domain-typo/?q=verizon&mode=reg&status=b&rules%5B%5D=qwerty&rules%5B%5D=swap&rules%5B%5D=sticky&rules%5B%5D=look";>http://www.domaintools.com/domain-typo/?q=verizon&mode=reg&status=b&rules%5B%5D=qwerty&rules%5B%5D=swap&rules%5B%5D=sticky&rules%5B%5D=look</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Let's say that the "base" domain name is declared to be
Verizon.com.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Then if Verizon wanted to own verizoln.com or
verizom.com, but the</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>traffic from those domains wasn't worth $7/yr to Verizon
(i.e. it</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>doesn't "pay" for them resolve), they could pay say $3/yr
to register</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>them but have no nameservers, at the same time linking it
to</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Verizon.com. They could do the same for domains in other
TLDs,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>declaring them "defensive registrations" that all link to
one base</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>domain that does resolve.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>One could develop an algorithm to test whether a domain
that is</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>declared as "defensive" is similar enough to that base
domain name to</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>qualify (e.g. a certain number of common characters,
common typos like</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>wwwdomain.com, etc.). An algorithm probably wouldn't
capture 100% of</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>defensive registrations, but it could probably reduce
costs for a</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>healthy fraction of them.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>There could also be a function to list all defensive
registrations</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>(with no nameservers) for a given base domain, to make
abusers easier</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>to bring to justice. For example, let's say someone other
than Disney</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>did own wwwdisney.com and used that as their active
"base" domain for</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>speculative but low traffic domains (which didn't
generate $7/yr worth</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>of traffic) such as wwwdisney.org. A markholder would be
able to more</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>easily capture the entire set of typos that didn't
resolve (and thus</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>were registered under the lower cost system) in one
action because of</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>that linkage.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>> 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.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If the domain doesn't
generate $7/yr</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>worth of traffic, a markholder might still keep the
domain registered</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>in order to avoid facing the UDRP and legal costs of
$5,000+ if the</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>domain is abused by someone else. If these marginal names
could face</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>lower carrying costs (say $3/yr instead of $7/yr), that
cost savings</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>could be dramatic, thousands or even tens of thousands of
dollars per</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>year.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Registry operators might not be happy by the loss of
"fully priced"</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>defensive registration fees that they're used to
currently, but that's</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>not a suitable business model to begin with. Depending on
the</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>elasticity of demand, ironically registries might even
actually</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>increase the number and total revenues from defensive
registrations,</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>as the lower price for domains deemed "defensive" would
actually</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>increase the total number registered and possibly the
total</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>profitability for the registry.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Sincerely,</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>George Kirikos</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>416-588-0269</span></p>
<p><a class=rvts20 href="http://www.leap.com/";>http://www.leap.com/</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>This e-mail message and any attachments may contain
confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In
the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s
company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be
assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in
reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please
destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts19>Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should
check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and
sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail
communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If
you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence
of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any
additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically
requested.</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span
class=rvts7>************************************************************</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>HSBC Holdings plc</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United
Kingdom</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>Registered in England number 617987</span></p>
<p><span
class=rvts7>************************************************************</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER -
THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally
privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or
use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete
it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return
E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error
or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or
omissions. </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|