RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign

["Caleb Queern" <cqueern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cyveillance's representatives in the BC support Mike's proposed text.

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:16 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

I support Mike R's proposed text and Sarah's recommendation.

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:58 AM
To: Michael D. Palage; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

I like the proposal Mike R. has put on the table.  Given that ICANN
previously closed the loophole on the AGP to deter tasting, which
clearly affected the stability of DNS operations, why couldn't we put
forth a call for review since this service has the potential to
destabilize the remedy ICANN already fixed?

Sarah

 



Sarah B. Deutsch 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 703-351-3044 
Fax: 703-351-3670 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:24 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

Hello All,

 

I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for
it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than
good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted
in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry
agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny
a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or
(ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I
personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these
criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be
objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so.
Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this
request within the 15 day time frame.  If there are no proposed
contractual modifications, no Board action would be required.

 

Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the
answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders
should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide
a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may
be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to
address our concerns.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael Palage

 

<BEGIN QUESTIONS>

 

Question1:  Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after
waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited
changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar
lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying
to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The
registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time
of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon
initial registration date."

 

The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges
during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the
Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the
business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's
statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity...

 

VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN
accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top

level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange:

? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to
the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the

Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP").

? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to
process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name

and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a
modification or update to an existing registration

? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following
criteria:

o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain
name;

o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top
Level Domain;

o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30
calendar days;

o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30
calendar days; and

o The incoming domain name must be available.

? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will
execute the exchange by updating the registry

database:

o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified
registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the

incoming domain name;

o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be
returned to the available pool following expiration of

the pending delete period;

o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the
registration including create date, expiration date, name

servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for
incoming domain name; and

o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange
after 30 calendar days.

? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP
Interface.

? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at
the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one

year term based upon initial registration date.

? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois.

 

 

Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a
mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for
this WhoWas feature or will it be free?

 

As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a
nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and
operational costs of providing the service.

 

Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the
domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee
for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom
will they be provided.

 

Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to
the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP
and web interfaces.

 

<END QUESTIONS>

 

 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Susan Kawaguchi
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign.
Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? 

 

Susan Kawaguchi

Domain Name Manager


Facebook Inc. 

1601 S. California Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 

Phone - 650 485-6064

Cell - 650 387 3904

 

NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information
that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other
privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy,
or retransmit the email or its contents."

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now
inserted...

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts.  I agree this
proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT
be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals.  It certainly
has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP
Limits policy.  Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage
of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP
Limits policy.

 

We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see
if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration.  The
deadline for such a motion is 4/13.  I suspect it would have broad
support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might
still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event
ought to serve the purpose.  

 

Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to
ICANN directly.  Do we have BC consensus at least on the following?

 

[DRAFT]

 

The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with
respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the
.net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could
raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition.
Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain
tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and
therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must
be considered.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service
proposed by VeriSign

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign
service.  My view is that because this proposal could pass through very
quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential
consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach
out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the
process must be slowed down and studied carefully.

 

The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering
generic names.  Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact
remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single
domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year.
So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange
service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain
names.  On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse.

 

When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the
number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face
thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are
still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high
quality names that drive traffic.  The recent report on cybersquatting
out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still
face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who
are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names.   The report
estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains
collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors.  If these
cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be
ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world.  So it is
reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register
multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem.

 

I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make
their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is
the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the
first place.  A few questions, comments and ideas:

 

1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no
reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative
costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on
a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for
possible infringements.  What will Verisign do when the brand holder
writes to them and demands they stop selling the name?  My guess is that
they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation
and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist
letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits.

 

2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be
provided for free or at a cost.  In any case, the same concerns about
pushing the burden on trademark owners remains.  Also, what steps does
Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information
provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with
this service?  Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a
proxy service?

 

3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could
register under the exchange service?

 

If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 

 

1) Limit the service to generic names only?  Why not allow trademark
owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks
that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and
allow them to opt names out of this service?  

 

2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when
offering the service?  For example, when an applicant searches for the
availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt
out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a
trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties
associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they
have a legal right to use such name.

 

3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information
and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy?

 

Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential
fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied
carefully with all affected stakeholders.


Thanks,


Sarah

 



Sarah B. Deutsch 
Vice President & Associate General Counsel 
Verizon Communications 
Phone: 703-351-3044 
Fax: 703-351-3670 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed
by VeriSign

BC Members:

On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new
registry service called "Domain Name Exchange."  VeriSign's proposal and
QA& is posted at
http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf
Here's how VeriSign describes the service:

Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse
business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept
for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a
domain name registration that has significant time remaining until
expiration.   Today when a registrant terminates a package of services
from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month
period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the
associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain
exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package
that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain.
The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed
to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient
way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are
no longer needed.

For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain
name is a secondary service.  For example, the European registrar 
1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu
) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence.
Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to
drop the website and domain after just a few months.   Registrars would
pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to
get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month.
Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from
registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients.

Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign
may propose it for .com at some point.  And that's where several BC
officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a
new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more
cyber-squatting and typo-squatting.  

"Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles.  "Tasting" is how
domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates
enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain.
The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like
SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at
by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search
engine). 
Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads
for related products and services. 

The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the
way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing
illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising.  Moreover,
several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and
other BC members providing online advertising services to support the
trade. 

But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting
or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical
variants designed to deceive users.  Cybersquatting and typosquatting
could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names
that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to
a known business or organization they intended to reach.

Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost
by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by
registrars and registries.   That led to rampant tasting in domains like
.com.   The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end
the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege.  Using the
policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP
tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm
)

Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence
of trademark and typographical squatting?  I asked my friends at
VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I
learned: 

Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting
that was done with AGP before 2009.  First, a domain 'taster' has to
actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at
11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations,
but its not free.  Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen
names for ad traffic.   

Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange
as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks.
So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in
their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on
exchanged names,  and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of
historical Whois).  

VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools
that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other
illegal purposes.  They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct
dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the
public comment process described below.

So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send
concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN
public comments.


Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new
registry services: 


ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service
Evaluation Process (RSEP).  ICANN staff has 15-days to make a
"preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires
further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues
with Security & Stability or competition.  There's no official comment
period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns
to staff.  See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html

If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability
or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical
Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the
proposal (2nd chance to comment).  This panel has 45 days to do a
written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or
Stability.

ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to
comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event
the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service
creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or
Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry
Service."

So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90
days if the panel raises S&S concerns).