<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by
VeriSign</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree
this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should simply
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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Individual member and constituency comments should also be
submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the
following?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>[DRAFT]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>RODENBAUGH LAW<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com/"><span style='color:blue'>http://rodenbaugh.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Deutsch, Sarah B<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange"
service proposed by VeriSign<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Steve,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could
register under the exchange service?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why
not: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact
information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Thanks,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Sarah</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>
<br>
<span style='color:navy'>Sarah B. Deutsch <br>
Vice President & Associate General Counsel <br>
Verizon Communications <br>
Phone: 703-351-3044 <br>
Fax: 703-351-3670 </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve DelBianco<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> bc - GNSO list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange"
service proposed by VeriSign</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>BC
Members:<br>
<br>
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 <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf</a>
Here’s how VeriSign describes the service:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>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.<br>
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.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>For many website hosting
service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service.
For example, the European registrar <br>
1and1 offers web hosting with “free domains included” ( <u><span
style='color:blue'><a href="http://1and1.eu">http://1and1.eu</a></span></u> )
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
“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). <br>
Domainers make money on these domain names by “parking” a page with ads for
related products and services. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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 (<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm</a>
)<br>
<br>
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: <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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). <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<u><br>
<br>
Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry
services</u>: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br>
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 <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html">http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.”<br>
<br>
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). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>