Is it extortion?

[verbster]

Yesterday, there was a pretty long story on National Public Radio (NPR) about domains. More specifically, it talked about the use of the new extensions that could be used in a derogatory way (like .xxx and [the soon to come] .sucks, etc.) to harm the business or reputation of people/businesses/public figures and such.

Most of those interviewed felt they had to buy these domains to protect themselves, like Taylor Swift and Wal-Mart. But the interesting perspective was that some felt these new registry extensions were being proposed and issued mostly so the registrars could charge high registry renewal fees, knowing that the potentially damaging domains would be purchased by richer people/companies, and then would pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year to renew them. They used terms like "extortion" when the registrar determined which domains were getting charged "premium" annual renewal charges. There was a bunch on the trademark infringement, too, but you need to hear that from the show.

Anyway, I just found it interesting to hear. It made some registrars, domains and domainers look pretty ugly; maybe rightly so in some cases, but not in others. Unfortunately, they all get mixed together.

 

[brandnow]

But the interesting perspective was that some felt these new registry extensions were being proposed and issued mostly so the registrars could charge high registry renewal fees, knowing that the potentially damaging domains would be purchased by richer people/companies, and then would pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per year to renew them.

Sounds spot on.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Regardless what extension people use, it can be unethical. I can't really blame a .sucks or a .xxx for wanting to potentially capitalize on a market that has plenty of demand and in need of more supply. One could register company+sucks.info or name+xxx.biz in any extension just as easily as company.sucks or name.xxx.

I think the media is overlooking all unethical registrations that were already happening, way before the new gTLD's that may or may not be a little more blatant came into the picture. Like with any domain, regardless of extension, a TM holder will normally go after it in UDRP or other legal fashion. There should be no doubt that a company like LEGO will go after the owner of LEGOsucks.la, LEGOsex.Biz, LEGO.xxx, SuckyLEGOs.com, or LEGO.sucks. They will go after them "ALL". So we probably shouldn't single out just 1 or 2 extensions.

Ethics is questionable in any extension. .Tv (while not a negative term) loved to charge premium reg. prices for some words. remember that? Nobody ranted about that being unethical. So, why would any other extension be unethical for doing the same thing that .Tv did or what some of the other ccTLD's do at $500+ registration fee's?

Just my thoughts anyways, but If someone wants to be unethical and take the chance at ruining their life by registering a TM in a smear campaign that could wind up putting them in court with hefty legal fee's or other legal issues (Civil or criminal), they are going to find a way to do it regardless of the extension.

 

[Kate]

Yes, I think it is extorsion. It is the only raison d'être for a TLD like .sucks: ransom TM holders.

 

[alien51]

The question that you should be asking, is why does ICANN allow the launching of these types of TLDs that have no sensible value to mankind ??

 

[klstrphnky]

The question that you should be asking, is why does ICANN allow the launching of these types of TLDs that have no sensible value to mankind ??

The monies?

 

[alien51]

Yes, i know. It was actually a sarcastic question. lol

 

[klstrphnky]

And you've got a sarcastic response