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

Thu Apr 8 22:43:22 UTC 2010

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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] 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 at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] 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).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100408/a5e6c3dc/attachment.html>