[gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs

[George Kirikos]

Hi again,

FYI, Maxim's email that I quoted from below doesn't actually appear in
the RPM PDP archives:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/

so I think only Greg Shatan and I saw it. (Maxim's email was a
response to Greg's email) Maxim might want to resend that earlier
email in its entirety, so that everyone else can benefit from its
knowledge (it probably was sent from the wrong "From" address, i.e.
not the email address that is subscribed to this mailing list, but one
that received the email via forwarding; I received it as I was on the
"cc" list after a "Reply All" to Greg's email)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/




On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:27 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:
>> These days, criminals interact on purely economical basis, and weakened
>> interaction between
>
> Yes, that's a very important point that should not be lost in all this
> debate. The URS and UDRP don't really attack the economic aspect of
> cybercrime (including cybersquatting) very well, in my opinion. That's
> why the Verizon/iREIT lawsuit was so effective (as previously
> discussed on this mailing list), as was as the Verizon/OnlineNic case:
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/technology/companies/25verizon.html
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/27/onlinenic_verizon_ruling_upheld/
>
> Remember that scene from Batman?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS7NaktQ8g
>
> "I want you to tell all your friends about me."
>
> Those highly publicized cases told active and prospective
> cybersquatters all about Verizon, and not to mess with them. I'm sure
> many cybersquatters cleared out their portfolios of anything
> Verizon-related due to these actions.
>
> We've also seen evidence of the decline in the profitability of
> cybersquatting by looking at how many UDRP cases CitizenHawk has filed
> over time:
>
> http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=citizenhawk&search=text&results=100&start=1
>
> Just 3 cases in 2018 so far. As many members of this PDP are likely
> already aware, they file UDRPs on behalf of companies at no cost up
> front, but in exchange they monetize the traffic from the domains that
> are won:
>
> https://icannwiki.org/CitizenHawk
>
> The fact that we've seen such a sharp decline in cases they've brought
> is consistent with the fact that cybersquatting is less profitable
> than it used to be, because the problem has been addressed in other
> ways (e.g. getting domains banned at various monetization services
> like Google Adsense or parking companies, affiliate programs, credit
> card processors, hosting companies, Google Safebrowsing, etc.).
> CitizenHawk is driven purely by economics, so there are just fewer
> profitable typosquatting domains out there that they can successfully
> target via their business model.
>
> In conclusion, consistent with your statement, attacking the economics
> of cybercrime in more targeted manner (to deter the practice because
> it's simply unprofitable) is far more effective than to try to
> "punish" the criminals with a "weak" domain transfer (UDRP) or
> suspension (URS). The biggest criminals tend to be highly rational
> economic actors, otherwise they don't survive in "business" very long.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/