EFFECTS EVERYONE: The New ICANN Proposal Called: “Rapid Suspension System”

companyone · Jun 6, 2009

Hi,

You can help STOP this with a simple email to ICANN!

Hey Affiliates & DOMAIN OWNERS - Screw You! (pass it on)

ALL LINKS CAN BE FOUND HERE ~ ARTICLE: “Rapid Suspension System”

If this new ICANN proposal called “Rapid Suspension System” goes through, I can cheaply file a complaint to get your affiliate landing pages taken down immediately. Shoot first and ask questions later! Think about that… I file for next to nothing, claim your Acai-berri site is confusingly similar to my Acai-beari site, and your landing page goes “bye bye” while your PPC campaigns click away into the red. Don’t even think about arguing… it goes off line FIRST (I’ll make sure it’s on a Friday at 4:45pm heh heh).

Send an email to ICANN right NOW saying “no way to rapid dispute system”(mailto it could save your future.

When opportunity knocks you have to answer. This time, it’s a “negative knock”. That means if you don’t answer, you don’t just miss an opportunity but lose out later, when the consequences of your inaction hit you smack in the face. Luckily, this one is easy. It’s a simple email. If you’re smart, you’ll send one right now.

What’s the opportunity? How about an opportunity not to have to battle Joe-abusive when he has your domain taken offline? There’s a proposal on the table that would make it dirt cheap and simple for just about anyone to file a claim that YOUR domain name infringes on their trademark, and to have your website immediately taken down.

The existing dispute process for internet web sites (domains) costs about $1600 bucks. A trademark holder has to make a case for why your web site is infringing on their trademark, before they can get anything changed. And of course you have a right to answer the complaint. This process keeps things “civil”…. it takes effort and some money to acuse you, and you can respond reasonably (or tell them to take a walk) with no cost. Only after a claim has been made, debated, and judged, does your website come down.

We also have the DMCA, which can be used for more immediate concerns (but which also has a penalty for mis-use).

But now a lobby group for big corporations has pushed to change the system so they can get your site taken down for a few dollars, based on their claim that it infringes. What do you think? Do you agree with me that this would mean constant headaches for you? Bad idea.

So tell them so. Just send an email to [email protected] and say “No way! Bad idea!” and tell them you do NOT support this “Uniform Rapid Suspension System”.

I have a website I’ve used for email and a home page for about 8 years, which is a clever twist on a word. I have received inquiries from companies over the years, because they, too use that same clever twist on the word. They have asked about buying it from me, asked whether I would link to them, or if I would help promote their products (for free). They have never filed a dispute claim because I would probably win and they don’t want to waste $1600. Even though I never trademarked it, I had it first, and it is not (despite their wishes) truly infringing on their trademarks. Under this new proposal, they could take my site offline immediately at almost no cost to themselves. Is that fair? Think about the leverage they would gain if that was a revenue producing site. For each day it was off line, it would be costing ME money, putting pressure on ME to negotiate out of the mess that I had nothing to do with in the first place. When I think like a dirty bastard, I imaging all sorts of cute ways this could be used as an anti competitive tactic in the affiliate world!

Just think of all of the affiliate sites that could be immediately taken off line because some company claims the websites are “confusingly similar” or files some other grey area complaint, knowing they don’t need to actually make a case, just file a complaint. THINK OF THE LOST PPC REVENUES when your landing page goes offline but you don’t know it!

This is pretty important -send an email TODAY and let ICANN know you won’t tolerate big business telling us how the Internet will be managed. Do it now, because in a few weeks, it might be too late, and you’ll probably regret it as your web sites get taken down.

Perhaps most important, pass the word. Let everyone in online marketing know about this a.s.a.p. because this is under consideration NOW and the comment period closes in JUNE!

* ICANN page (it’s buried in the details of that)

* Mike Berken’s write up (he lays it out for domain investors)

* email address to send a NO WAY email : [email protected]

ALL LINKS CAN BE FOUND HERE ~ ARTICLE: “Rapid Suspension System”

____

Peace!
Dan

tristanperry · Jun 6, 2009

Oh dear - what the hell is wrong with ICANN? They seem to want to ruin the industry.

seven · Jun 6, 2009

Depending on how much "cheap" is, this will never work.

shaper · Jun 6, 2009

URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System

This appears to open the door wide for reverse hijacking, dirty tricks in ppc campaigns, conflicting trademarks on an international level, and bad faith claims. This also appears to put the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser.

Not Good

Premium · Jul 4, 2009

EVERYBODY.. DO YOUR PART AND SEND AN EMAIL TO SAY NO TO THE URS. DO IT BEFORE JULY 6!

All you have to do is send an email to [email protected] (remember to confirm when you get an email back from them). If everybody takes 5 mins to do this, we can prevent it from happening!

You can see what others have already posted to ICANN here http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/

MH-Andy · Jul 4, 2009

I've sent my e-mail.

Premium · Jul 5, 2009

MH-Andy said:
I've sent my e-mail.

Good to hear! Hopefully everyone takes the time to do this.

cityforums.com · Jul 6, 2009

companyone ... let's take an example

If site.com gets a trademark,

can they subsequently pick up all the domains

with the keyword site in in ?

thanks

firefly · Jul 6, 2009

cosmicray said:
companyone ... let's take an example

If site.com gets a trademark,

can they subsequently pick up all the domains

with the keyword site in in ?

thanks

Dude...they'll be getting whatever they want.

Cover your generics or your ass...it won't makes a difference. If they want em', they'll get em' with this lovely little piece of shit....I mean legislation.

Everything is fair game if this comes in. Game over for a lot of people.

labrocca · Jul 6, 2009

Ridiculous OP.

The URS is not meant to address questionable cases of alleged infringement (e.g., use of terms in their generic sense) or for anti-competitive purposes or denial of free speech, but rather for those cases in which there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringement and abuse that is taking place.

Seems reasonable and clear their intentions. Did you bother to actually read this yourself?

The URS would address cases of abusive use of trademarks
where there is no genuine contestable issue as to the infringing or abusive use of a mark in a domain name and in connection with a site that represents abusive use (i.e., not a fair use or commentary situation nor a situation involving questions of whether the registrant is or is not authorized or selling, for example, legitimate, non-counterfeitgoods).

The URS will provide a low-cost and rapid means for taking down infringing domain name registrations, yet preserving a registrant’s right to a hearing and/or appeal. In addition, the URS does not result in the transfer or cancellation of a domain name registration. Rather domain name registrations found to be violating a brand owner’s rights will be placed in a frozen state, for the life of the registration, and only will resolve to a specific error webpage.

ICANN has my support in this.

Finally, as a balance of fair interests and to prevent abusive use of the process, any trademark owner found to repeatedly misuse the URS, for example for anti-competitive purposes or to violate free speech, will be removed from the system and denied access to the URS for a set period of time.

Looks balanced.

The purpose of the URS is to address a cybersquatting problem for brand owners that is already insidious and enormous in scale, and which will continue to spiral out of control with the introduction of an unlimited number of new gTLDs unless addressed.

Something should be done.

The intent in proposing the URS is to solve the most clear-cut cases of trademark abuses, while balancing against the potential for an abuse of the process.

ICANN under it's new leadership appears to be finally "getting it".

The URS can effectively shut down cybersquatters. I like it.

Oh dear - what the hell is wrong with ICANN? They seem to want to ruin the industry.

Domains were never meant to be an industry.

That blog post is full of misinformation. Such as the URS would have a site frozen before registrant is notified. That's just not true at all..here is what ICANN says:

Notice of the complaint to the Registrant and to the domain name service providers is extraordinarily important to the success and legitimacy of the process. Notwithstanding
the trademark abuse alleged in the complaint, registrants should have the ability to
answer a complaint prior to the invocation of any adverse consequences to their domain
names and websites. While abusive use should be addressed as quickly and inexpensively as practicable, the IRT is cognizant that registrants also should be protected against over-aggressive use of this system by complainants. Fair notice and an opportunity to answer is one of several remedies to counter such potential abuse.

firefly · Jul 6, 2009

The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proposal would effectively displace the UDRP at all new gTLDs and substantially diminish registrants’ procedural and substantive due process rights. The extreme low cost of filing complaints (as little as $1.50 per domain in mass filings)

Sounds fair??

lol...what drugs are you on? All legal rights instantly stripped. They want to apply it to .com/.net/.org as well.

There is also a lack of effective or affordable substantive appeals procedures for registrants who believe that their domains have been unfairly suspended. Further, trademark interests have already voiced the goal of imposing the URS on incumbent gTLDs, including .com, soon after its adoption for new gTLDs.

Everything...*READ* *EVERYTHING*...will be fair game. Generic terms you think will be safe, won't be. All for $1.50.

You crack me up.

Why bother buying a domain from a domainer, even if it is generic when you can file a complaint for $1.50 with no chance of appeal from the poor sucker you reverse hijacked it from.

labrocca · Jul 6, 2009

The URS doesn't allow transfer.

All legal rights instantly stripped.

Name one right stripped. Maybe it's time you read the registration agreement. You don't own the domain. It's a contract you have with the registry which in turn has a contract with ICANN. The registrants rights are not violated here. This is to protect the rights of TM holders against infringers. The problem is that the vast majority of those with TM domains are so-called domainers.

This will get passed and not because it's unfair. It will get passed because it's the right thing to do to cleanup the registry and remove all these squatters. Something like this has been due for a while. It was just a matter of time.

webmoi · Jul 6, 2009

I oppose the Rapid Suspension System and I've e-mailed ICANN.

My opinion is that ICANN should NOT be policing domains unless said 'squatter' is representing themselves as the trademark holder in their country. Perhaps we don't 'own' domains as labrocca pointed out, then neither does Reebok or Nike! Corporations should have the foresight to register their dot coms before going live and be willing to purchase the domains they have an objection to.

labrocca · Jul 6, 2009

Corporations should have the foresight to register their dot coms before going live and be willing to purchase the domains they have an objection to.

Thank you for making my point about why URS is needed and will get passed. It's domainers such as yourself with attitudes such as yours that are the problem.

webmoi · Jul 6, 2009

My point, Labrocca, is that if a US company goes after a domainer in, say, India who has 'squatted' on 'their' trademark, it is absolutely wrong. First, they are in a totally different jurisdiction, and the standard of living may be totally different where they cannot pay the big bucks and American Corp could pay to clear up such a dispute. This is the world wide web and all domains should be available to all. I am, also, not in favor of names being add to a Globally Protected Marks list unless they are registered in EVERY country. Why should they be added, otherwise? The web needs protection. It is one of the last frontiers we have that is not downtrodden with governmental controls. If anyone has noticed, our fundamental rights, worldwide, are speedily slipping out of our grasp. I support protecting domainers over controlling them.

Premium · Jul 6, 2009

labrocca,

I can't believe that you are supporting the only thing that could RUIN the domain industry. It seems you may know VERY LITTLE of what the URS and ICANN is trying to do. Don't you see this is what ICANN wants you to do? They put in the text that they are going to "solve the most clear-cut cases of trademark abuses, while balancing against the potential for an abuse of the process. "... THEY WANT YOU TO THINK THAT SO YOU DONT OBJECT.

WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS is...."WE ARE GOING TO STRIP YOUR RIGHTS AND DOMAIN NAMES CAN NOW BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU FASTER AND EASIER SO THAT THE CORPORATE GIANTS WIN AND THE SMALL BUSINESS / INDIVIDUAL LOSE! IT IS SIMPLY A BLACKMAIL TOOL AND WE SHOULD ALL BE SENDING IN OUR EMAILS TO REJECT THIS CRAZY IDEA. I CANT BELIEVE IT IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED.

I hope you reconsider what you just said..

mwzd · Jul 6, 2009

labrocca, what you're missing is the potential for abuse of lawful registrants.

If i can get a tm in my country for a particular term, and the domain is worth $2500 or more, why wouldn't i try to get it via URS? Specially when i can club 200 other names and only pay $250?

The basic precept is good, but like with all things icann, the potential for abuse by rogue tm owners is too immense. You can literally kiss high value sales goodbye if you can't afford to appoint a legal team on a permanent basis.

labrocca · Jul 6, 2009

I can't believe that you are supporting the only thing that could RUIN the domain industry.

I don't really think the domain industry is all that important imho. I would say protecting trademark holders is more vital. Domainers have a bad reputation and rightfully so.

It seems you may know VERY LITTLE of what the URS and ICANN is trying to do.

I don't think I misunderstand it at all. I read it carefully. I quoted it. I have made clear statements about it. I support it.

My point, Labrocca, is that if a US company goes after a domainer in, say, India who has 'squatted' on 'their' trademark, it is absolutely wrong.

This can happen now with UDRP. The URS allows for quicker resolutions for trademark holders.

they cannot pay the big bucks and American Corp could pay to clear up such a dispute

Actually the URS appears to be simpler and cheaper to dispute. It can also only result in a frozen suspended domain and not a transfer. Abuse is going to be minimized by that fact. The only real abuse might be competitor sites using it to get them suspended. That doesn't effect most domainers.

They put in the text that they are going to "solve the most clear-cut cases of trademark abuses, while balancing against the potential for an abuse of the process. "... THEY WANT YOU TO THINK THAT SO YOU DONT OBJECT.

Your agenda is to protect your domains. To further promote that you are creating a false hysteria. You have no evidence that ICANN is lying or intends to allow abuse. I have their own statement where they clearly address the abuse issue and imho with a satisfactory response.

why wouldn't i try to get it via URS

Very simply you can't get it. Another person that apparently hasn't read my posts here nor the actual proposal by ICANN. The URS will never result in a transfer.

You can literally kiss high value sales goodbye if you can't afford to appoint a legal team on a permanent basis.

Top players have lawyers already in play. This doesn't change that.

I know domainers are scared of this passing through. It's not unreasonable fear especially if you hold questionable names. But I don't see the need for alarm. It's evident the industry needs more oversight and TM holders need more protection. Realistically this might have the opposite effect on the industry and actually help it grow. There are serious problems with new TLD's are released and TM holders have to spend millions defending their brands. Do you think TM holders are going to allow more TLDs at this rate?

I think ICANN wants to set this up to stop obvious abuse in a quick and efficient manner. How is that the wrong thing to accomplish?

I contend I myself might lose domains in URS. I am not innocent. However I do respect the fact that TM holders do have rights and if they want more protection I am understanding of that.

The basic precept is good, but like with all things icann, the potential for abuse by rogue tm owners is too immense.

ICANN has new leadership that has imho shown to work well with the community. Don't these faces look trustworthy?

ICANN | Board of Directors

-REECE- · Jul 6, 2009

I wonder how many companies will try the URS on their competition -- sure seems like an awfully cheap way to potentially destroy them.

Another reason why domainers should start developing their domains -- get something on there so it looks like you have a legitimate reason (beyond domaining) for owning the domain.

Domagon · Jul 7, 2009

The penalty for abusing URS is laughable...

On a related note, I presume the 1 year penalty would be applicable to the specifically named complainant only? If so, that would still allow a related party, such as another corporate division, a TM licensee, etc to file a URS on the same domain(s) again in the meantime. And after 1 year, repeat the cycle - easy way to keep their competitors websites down in perpetual URS.

Many registrants won't know how to properly respond and/or lack the resources to challenge a URS complaint.

Bottom line is that URS is going to make censorship of internet sites a cinch.

Ron

labrocca · Jul 7, 2009

I presume the 1 year penalty would be applicable to the specifically named complainant only?

You presume wrong. From my understanding they will not have the ability to file any URS.

Many registrants won't know how to properly respond and/or lack the resources to challenge a URS complaint.

They'll have to figure it out then same as everything else related to their domains and sites.

Bottom line is that URS is going to make censorship of internet sites a cinch.

That's a far fetched conclusion and I see no basis for it. Again...did you really read the proposal?

Domagon · Jul 7, 2009

labrocca said:
You presume wrong. From my understanding they will not have the ability to file any URS.

"they" ... does that include a company's other divisions, their TM licensees, etc?

If you are so sure the answer is "no", please cut and paste the URS policy text that specifically explains who exactly is sanctioned. The complainant only? Related divisions / companies too? And TM Licensees too?

Again, from my understanding, the 1 year penalty wouldn't preclude other related parties from filing URSes on the same domain(s) within the that same period. See the problem!

labrocca said:
They'll have to figure it out then same as everything else related to their domains and sites.

A large portion of registrants have trouble just changing name servers, and you really believe they'll figure out URS? :lol: :?

labrocca said:
That's a far fetched conclusion and I see no basis for it. Again...did you really read the proposal?

Yes. And the fears of censorship is well justified based on the level of abuse that already occurs with DMCA complaints. With URS, the abuse potential is a magnatude worse than DMCA in that it shuts one's entire domain down.

There's no doubt many companies will use URS to shut out their competitors; interrupt their business.

And those critical of various websites will add URS to their weapon arsonal to supress the message of others they don't agree with.

Don't think that's far-fetched either, because it's already happening with DMCA complaints. And I've experienced such abuse first-hand with some cannabis related websites I run / help out with.

Ron

EFFECTS EVERYONE: The New ICANN Proposal Called: “Rapid Suspension System”

Established Member

Domainer & Web/Software DevVIP Member

VIP Member

Established Member

VIP Member

Established Member

VIP Member

Established Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

New Member

Top Member

New Member

VIP Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

VIP Member

Top Member

VIP Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement