question ICA: Big Players propose to change domain owners rights?

[offthehandle]

https://domaininvesting.com/phil-corwin-leaves-ica/

Eliot quoted on reprint from his blog this statement.

We see the next 18-24 months as critical for the domain industry. In the policy arena there are ongoing initiatives that have the potential to dramatically impact our ability to protect our assets and conduct business. There are large, well-funded and determined players working to change domain intellectual property law in ways that could dramatically impact our community.

Anybody have an idea who is behind the changes in IP Law?.

I did a search on the ICA website and found no results.
https://www.internetcommerce.org/

 

[jberryhill]

John do you share Nat's concern that IP interests could find a way to make all of domain investing practically illegal and on the way to extinction?

I do share Nat's concerns, but the "all of domain investing practically illegal and on the way to extinction" bit is a little over-the-top. I also provide advice to more than one participant in the relevant working group.

How could you think that Godaddy or other big registrars would not have a vested interest to be against these major potential changes....

That's a very easy question to answer. GoDaddy and all of the major registrars and registries are well-engaged members of the ICANN community, and have representatives in the relevant working group:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950

Also from that link, you will find the link to the WG mailing list, so you can get the general tenor of the discussion.

But take a look at that membership list, their affiliations, and the prospects of domainer interests being anything other than a slim minority on any vote on any topic in that group.

However, if you take a look at the mailing list archives, there is very little active participation from the Ry's and Rar's. One thing that is convenient to simply monitor ICANN working group discussions is to just join the group, don't participate, but review the mailing list from time to time. But you can just as easily bookmark the mailing list and read it from time to time. I would imagine the proportion of commenters on this thread who do that is approximately zero.

But, take something like trademark gaming for sunrise periods. The registrars and registries have utterly zero interest in whether people are getting dodgy trademarks in order to qualify to buy domain names at premium rates during sunrise periods. In point of fact, having seen a lot of TMCH notices in the course of processing bulk registrations during TLD launches, it is absolutely clear to me where the money is being made on "TMCH agents", who is making it, and how much they are making.

But making "all of domain investing practically illegal and on the way to extinction" is an exaggeration. Yes, they certainly want to make it more difficult, and that's neither a surprise nor anything new. But it really doesn't help the cause of a rational discussion for the sides to engage in exaggerations.

For example, I was at a seminar at WIPO two weeks ago, and the WIPO rep on that working group gave a summary of the discussions going on within the working group. Now, one of the topics of discussion in the WG has been the pre-emption of dictionary words by TM claims in new TLD sunrise procedures, and the gaming which has gone on around that. His characterization of these discussions was to say things like, "They've spent two months arguing over whether Apple should have a trademark."

Well, no, they haven't. But that's what partisans do in these things. The various debates over ICANN policies on TM protection have been going on since ICANN was started. They will continue to go on. I was on the first iteration of an ICANN UDRP review workgroup back in 2004ish, and the arguments (and many of the participants) haven't changed. I wasted a substantial portion of my professional life on that sort of nonsense. But you aren't going to change the mind of someone who is being paid to disagree with you. The "model" is that you get a bunch of bright, reasonable people, get them to talk stuff over, and they come up with a consensus. But, frankly, that model is ridiculous, because ICANN policy discussions are simply not good faith discussions, and the required "interest statements" are a joke. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I will be releasing some interesting data that demonstrates why.

I personally spend thousands yearly on legit domains and there's thousands of domainers who spend multiple of what I spend.

Well, it sure sucks that the domain community couldn't spend enough to keep their primary ICANN advocate from wandering off to greener pastures then.

 

[jberryhill]

With so much potentially at stake, I'm sure a interesting amount could have been raised.

And if my aunt had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

 

[Recons.Com]

@jberryhill Registrars, including GD, own large portfolios of investment names. GD has invested tens of millions in them. With these changes, all those holdings could be interpreted as "bad faith", as they are for sale and GD has no intention to develop them.

 

[pokainc]

One big reason the "panic" mode is a bit subsiding until further info is the fact that Godaddy spent 50 million buying a portfolio recently. No matter how you cut it, If they saw the trend going towards against domain investing, then why in the world would they have spent all that money... you invest where you see growth and profits.... logically anyway.. I'm sure Godaddy (as an entity) has a better pulse of what's happening with key legislation than most people.

 

[pokainc]

Although that is a known fact, I doubt Godaddy would risk their reputation by doing something that many can parallel to insider trading type of acts... and I highly doubt the purchasing department spends that kind of money without the proper vetting which would indicate that it's a sound investment which includes potential upcoming legislative changes. 100K maybe, 50 million, doubt it. It's speculation at this point, but the signs show still in favor of domain investing. Maybe for flagrant violators it will be tougher.

 

[Lox]

I don't see the Godaddy one

GD is listed (gold member)
https://www.internetcommerce.org/directory/

 

[pokainc]

@Loxline thank you for the path. Should be on the main page too ..

 

[biggie]

Not at all.

Principally, registries and registrars don't care what dispute mechanisms are applied to domain name registrations, as long as there is a dispute mechanism under which the registry/ar may point to the dispute mechanism to avoid liability on their part for domain name registrations undertaken by their customers.

At the time the UDRP was written, the US ACPA was also being drafted. The ACPA was specifically drafted to excuse registrars etc. from liability so long as there was a "reasonable policy" in place for resolving TM disputes over domain names. That was by design.

If people register 10,000 domain names which are then claimed by TM holders under some dispute policy, it is entirely revenue-neutral to the registry/ar. They don't care who registers the names. Their primary interest is in (a) avoiding liability and (b) offloading dispute resolution which is simple for the registry/ar to implement.

i was gonna say what Mr. JB said above, but he said it before me, and stated it much more eloquently than i would have.




imo....

 

[Asfas1000]

If people register 10,000 domain names which are then claimed by TM holders under some dispute policy, it is entirely revenue-neutral to the registry/ar.

But this will discourage further registrations from the same (and other) individuals, so some drop in revenue will ultimately exist.

 

[jberryhill]

But this will discourage further registrations from the same (and other) individuals, so some drop in revenue will ultimately exist.

...if you believe some "tweak" to domain dispute proceedings will have any impact whatsoever on the next nitwit in the endless supply thereof, who is going to register the NNNNth variation of "Amazon" in some oddball TLD.

By a wide margin, the bulk of UDRP and URS cases are pretty clear cut no-brainers, and there has never been a shortage (as many of the questions in this forum suggest) of people who re-invent the wheel.

With few "frequent flyer" exceptions, I doubt the prospect of losing a domain name through some dispute mechanism has ever had any deterrent impact on most names which have been subject to a UDRP, which overall seem to arise through simple ignorance that the UDRP exists. I mean, if you look at the type of "help" that is requested and offered in this forum alone - and that's among people who have some fraction of a clue - it's safe to say the supply of fresh faces is nowhere near exhausted.

Where any of this stuff gets "interesting" is in the relative handful of cases which aren't no-brainer abusive domain registration.

 

[pokainc]

What you're saying does makes sense, unless they start arbitrating what constitutes "proper" development (if everyone does very simple page propagations).... Also another downside is that I (and many others) sell domains to business owners or sometimes first time buyers who are interested in the domain but are not familiar how any of it works. For them seeing the for sale sign and a contact form is what makes them more likely to inquire. It is still obviously too early but doesn't hurt to be prepared for different scenarios..

 

[offthehandle]

@jberryhill I am somewhat aware of the many free legal advice posts you have made here on Namepro’s and read a few in my short time here where you are very helpful for free on a voluntary basis and for PR. Just wanted to say that I believe there are more than one of us who recognize your positive contribution. The history you quote is quite interesting that of an ugly politicized system, like so many organizations. I hope you can continue to participate in the future, and not let one or two comments from NP members or an errant client will dissuade you as though all of us are of the same mind set. It costs money for good legal representation and it is well worth it when needed. Thank you for posting.

 

[jberryhill]

I also provide advice to more than one participant in the relevant working group.

If it was in response to that, btw, no, the advice is not to any of the IP interests.

And, like I said, a couple of broken ribs is not conducive to a cheery disposition.

 

[howudoin8]

@jberryhill Registrars, including GD, own large portfolios of investment names. GD has invested tens of millions in them. With these changes, all those holdings could be interpreted as "bad faith", as they are for sale and GD has no intention to develop them.

Exactly my thoughts!

Domain Registrars like GD (& there are many), who have no intention of developing domains, will find themselves in some trouble for sure.

At the very least, they'll see a dramatic decrease in rate of new domain registrations which is sure to hit their bottom-line.

 

[ctmixing]

CSC Global represent alot of Fortune 500 companies and big brands. Their clients own a sh*t ton of "Valuable/unused/bad faith" domain names. You can even call CSC Global right now and buy a domain name from one of their clients if it is unused. I doubt these same companies are paying their lawyers to push change that would put their on domain names in jeopardy.


This sounds like a scare tactic to bring down the aftermarket pricing! That way the big fish can swoop in a buy it all up. Then drive the value higher than its ever been. Don't believe the B.S

 

[Bullock]

CSC Global represent alot of Fortune 500 companies and big brands. Their clients own a sh*t ton of "Valuable/unused/bad faith" domain names. You can even call CSC Global right now and buy a domain name from one of their clients if it is unused. I doubt these same companies are paying their lawyers to push change that would put their on domain names in jeopardy.


This sounds like a scare tactic to bring down the aftermarket pricing! That way the big fish can swoop in a buy it all up. Then drive the value higher than its ever been. Don't believe the B.S

I totally agree!

It seems to me there is a sneaky "war" among lobbies whose purposes are underhand.

 

[offthehandle]

@GeorgeK and @Nat Cohen I went and took both your advice and joined the ICA working group but only as an observer. For now, until I dig into this I am confused about archived debates and votes and past events and emails, and how many subgroups there are and the organization. Very few names other than both of yours did I recognize.

There are quite a few NP members who have that ICA icon, yet they are not on the list that I received.

I am not sure about making comments in this venue since it seems politicized, and I am not a politician. So I will lurk for now and get some education on whats going on and might change my mind. These roundrobin emails so far are interesting.

Glad to see you are vocal like these past few days posts. Keep up the good work.
Thsnk you for the recommendation.

 

[offthehandle]

Yes, Thank you very much for sharing that information and for making me aware of it and for any others who want to join. I just checked your link and that’s the group. It’s from the earlier link you posted in the thread I believe. The moderator responded immediately and was very professional.

Are there other emailing groups like that covering domain name owners rights you might also suggest? Thanks again.

 

[offthehandle]

Ok, Thanks George- I will take a look at those links.

 

[GeorgeK]

NAF also publishes its decisions, via: http://www.adrforum.com/SearchDecisions (choose a ruleset of 'UDRP' and leave all other fields blank, to see all the UDRP cases; URS are also published there, changing the ruleset accordingly) Both WIPO and NAF have mailing lists with daily decisions.

Yes, lots of "interesting" posts from people. One woman was even upset about posting style:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002170.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002171.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002172.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-July/002173.html

I suppose if they can't attack the substance, all they have left is to attack the style.

 

[GeorgeK]

Thank you again. Great info here. Well, thought I would check it out immediately and the First thing I did was enter UDRP in the Ruleset picklist, as you mentioned, pushed search then in 30 seconds It certainly had ALL UDRP’s. It actually came back with 24322 and started with the year 2000. Is this like a master database?

Pardon my ignorance, as I do not know the history of who was the intial gatekeeper of disputes like UDRP’s, can only assume it was the NAF. ICANN was the only domain name organization I had heard of that goes way back mid 1990’s, until joining this forum, and thought they controlled disputes but have yet to understand what are all the function(s) that they serve. At one time they were a small organization in Marina Del Rey.

The link I provided was only for the NAF UDRPs. The other providers have their own archives. WIPO is the other major UDRP provider (there are a few smaller providers), with approximately the same total UDRPs as NAF per year:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/casesx/all.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/

At one time, ICANN was archiving the decisions on their website, but they ceased doing that (many, many years ago). UDRPSearch.com was the best index of them all, but that site seems to have stopped in the past month or so, for unknown reasons.

ICANN created the UDRP policy, but the disputes themselves are handled by outside providers. You can see the list at:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/providers-6d-2012-02-25-en

 

[offthehandle]

@Nat Cohen

Thank you kindly for such a detailed and prompt response. This is big news to me. I am fairly new to this Industry, but not new to small business ventures and such problems occuring in other Industries. I didn’t know the IP Lawyers and powerful Corps were busy working on attacking domain investors. Frankly, for the past 20+ years, it’s not surprising the way the entire large corporation feeding frenzy of M & A’s and buyouts we have all witnessed so many changes and consolidation. The end goal is to gobble up and remove all small businesses, imo. Like Amazon is in the process of doing to retail.

I was not aware of this undercurrent in this industry. Maybe it isn’t a secret, but with all the thousand plus hours reading blogs and on this forum, I don’t recall reading about this pending threat as a consolidated effort. The UDRP’s are ad-hoc here and there and are covered on blogs quite well. Not sure if it is my own ignorance or lack of publicity, in either case I agree we all should become vocal like the EFF has done with the recent net neutrality, MPAA, etc. and their crusades.

Can you provide any list of who these specific corporate entities and law firms that are the most vocal and active in going after us? If you prefer not to do so publically, if you can please PM me or post a URL to any such list if it exists.

Thank you for your efforts and contribution to this forum.

 

[offthehandle]

Folks can join the ICANN RPM PDP at any time, see:

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+(RPMs)+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+Working+Group+Home (click on the FAQ link to see how to join)

As you can see from the current members list:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58729950

there are quite a few TM lawyers on it, so having more representation from domain name registrants would be a positive development.

In terms of time commitment, there's one 90 minute phone call each week, and one would also be expected to keep up with the mailing list (maybe another hour or so per week, on average).

Thank you George for posting and taking the time to put in the links.

Here is the FAQ page:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoworkgroupres/GNSO+Working+Group+Frequently+Asked+Questions

The instructions in the page are to send an email to : [email protected]
and state if you wish to be a "member" or "observer"

I went ahead and joined. Thank you again.

 

[pokainc]

==> I do see the Afternic logo on the ica site's member section (https://www.internetcommerce.org), but I don't see the Godaddy one. I know Godaddy owns Afternic, but seeing the Godaddy logo shown evidently with all its influence sends a stronger message imo not to mention it would be more re-assuring.

Does anyone know if this is on purpose? Is there a legal reason why Godaddy prefers Afternic to show and not their logo?

 

[equity78]

...if you believe some "tweak" to domain dispute proceedings will have any impact whatsoever on the next nitwit in the endless supply thereof, who is going to register the NNNNth variation of "Amazon" in some oddball TLD.

By a wide margin, the bulk of UDRP and URS cases are pretty clear cut no-brainers, and there has never been a shortage (as many of the questions in this forum suggest) of people who re-invent the wheel.

With few "frequent flyer" exceptions, I doubt the prospect of losing a domain name through some dispute mechanism has ever had any deterrent impact on most names which have been subject to a UDRP, which overall seem to arise through simple ignorance that the UDRP exists. I mean, if you look at the type of "help" that is requested and offered in this forum alone - and that's among people who have some fraction of a clue - it's safe to say the supply of fresh faces is nowhere near exhausted.

Where any of this stuff gets "interesting" is in the relative handful of cases which aren't no-brainer abusive domain registration.

John do you share Nat's concern that IP interests could find a way to make all of domain investing practically illegal and on the way to extinction?