Registrant Code -- of Rights and Responsibilities

[DomeBase]

Dear Folks at NamePros,

Sorry not to be a more frequent poster here (old timer, perhaps, but not frequent poster) -- but I would be interested in your feedback and comments on a proposed code of rights *and* responsibilities for registrants (domainers). As many of you know, there has been a lot of negative press and there is currently considerable momentum for legislation that could have a negative impact on domainers. Trouble is, some of it is deserved due to some actions that really should have been avoided. This code is an effort to build a consensus that might help domainers encourage each other to clean things up. Generally, professions that take it upon themselves to encourage ethical behavior retain more autonomy and those that do not lose it. We are at a bit of a crossroads here.

What would this be used for? Well... for starters.. discuss it at the forums and then other domain-related organizations (like the ICA) and then expand to non-domainer organizations to see if we can build consensus for the public good (like perhaps the IP constituency of ICANN)... and then perhaps publish it at DNJournal, CircleID, elsewhere... Anyway, not all the steps are thought out, but enough to get the ball rolling and see how things go.

Thank you for your consideration of the idea. Comments? Suggestions?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Registrant Code of Rights and Responsibilities

(draft for feedback – 4/27/2007)

DOMAIN REGISTRANT RIGHTS

1. Domain registrants have the right to register multiple domains.

2. Domain registrants have the right to buy domains and sell them at a profit.

3. Domain registrants have the right to develop domains in various ways and earn money from them.

4. Domain registrants have the right to pay competitive prices for domain registrations, not prices based on a monopoly power at some level in the domain supply chain.

5. Domain registrants have the right to register, develop, and sell generic domains without attempts by trademark holders to over-reach trademark rights and hijack those domains.*

DOMAIN REGISTRANT RESPONSIBILITIES

6. Domain registrants have the responsibility to avoid registering domains that infringe on trademarks.**

7. Domain registrants have the responsibility to pay registration costs and not abuse grace periods by registering domains for short periods without paying anything.

8. Domain registrants have the responsibility to show common decency in avoiding personal profit by registering domains associated with specific events involving other people’s suffering.

9. Domain registrants have the responsibility to show common decency in avoiding domains or sites that are likely to expose children to adult and/or harmful content.

-------------------------------------

10 *for example by claiming a domain that is a sub-string of a trademark, a domain registered before the term was used and trademarked, or a generic term being used in a generic manner for which there is a poorly-known trademark for the generic term approved for a specific non-generic application.

11 **for example by registering a domain that can be clearly parsed into made-up trademarked words whose value comes from their use as a trademark or domains that can be clearly parsed into trademarked terms for specific types of products that are advertised on the associated website.

 

[RJ]

Generally, professions that take it upon themselves to encourage ethical behavior retain more autonomy and those that do not lose it. We are at a bit of a crossroads here.

Agreed, there is a need for something like this to be adopted across the industry. It's great to see responsibilities listed alongside the rights.

On initial review, I don't see anywhere in your rules that need improvement. Perhaps along with rule #3 the offsetting responsibility to operate honestly, avoiding click-fraud or misleading visitors.

Great work, Bob. I hope others will offer their support for this as well. :tu:

 

[DomeBase]

Agreed, there is a need for something like this to be adopted across the industry. It's great to see responsibilities listed alongside the rights.

On initial review, I don't see anywhere in your rules that need improvement. Perhaps along with rule #3 the offsetting responsibility to operate honestly, avoiding click-fraud or misleading visitors.

Great work, Bob. I hope others will offer their support for this as well. :tu:

Thanks RJ. I was thinking about that point as well.

Have this at multiple forums and will wait a bit for more comments before responding and trying to merge them.

 

[goodkarmaco]

Its much to interperative regarding line 8. For instance that line would include even funeral homes. Besides, having people come down on other domainers for their vision of registering tragedy names is much to divisive and believe me if that rule is placed in effect you will see many mob domain deputies come out.

When the Irs. was formed it was supposed to be for a short time. My point being if we as a group endorse a policy that labels a domain person, we will only be dividing domainers. People who register tragedy domains will be labeled, as witnessed by us after this most recent tragedy. All that can come out of it is negative press, and search engine placement of harsh words from the most zealous.

In domain choices unless laws are not broken, we should allow individual choice. Each domainer is a individual business person and so free choice plays a role. That role will have to allow for every domain owner to use his/ her proper judgement as to what domains are to be registered. If names are chosen that go against our personal choice, in a free society we have to live with it. Just like everything else. There are all types of books, movies and all types of people who dislike or like those choices. Its not to difficult to let them do what they want and to grow as a individual. We each evolve as people by our own will and I suppose one of the shining attributes of a free society is letting others live their lives.

Laws give us perimeters to live within. Now if you are talking about us supporting a clean up of those in the domain business who are doing illegal things you have all my support.

I do not for instance think tragedy names like Katrina or katringrelief should be placed in a unprofessional status merely because they were regged as a name for ppc. Mainly because after some time, some of those names go on to become an asset to society and not a problem name. Since it is difficult to tell which names have staying power, a abstinance of those names is not a good idea. Where will a policy like that lead?.

If it starts with one sentace in line number 8, do we really think the wording will stay that short? Maybe names you think are not offensive will get banned in the future. Maybe your names will be critized, even if you really like them and have only good in your mind about its website developement.

Why do we read about katrina names selling in the Dnj a year or so after the event? I think because we are a little removed from the tragedy as time shows us that domains can be used in a good way even if they were registered near the event date.

A person may sell a certain name for a movie. Maybe for a psychiatric site about the reasons why some people snap. I know Montel had a show about the recent tragedy and the focus was why do people snap. I am sure with his commercial breaks every few minutes it was also a finacial success.

I pledge enough when I sign up with a registrarr to puchase my domains. Many may not have read the pages after pages of exemplary conduct domainers should adhere to when signing up with a new registrarr. I think the major bases of this outline are covered in general business ethics or with rules from Icann or thru the regsitrarr when the domain is regged.

I support being professional in business.

I also support a great variety of information on the web. The good the bad and the ugly.

 

[Dave_Z]

Don't know which forum to post this, DB, so here instead. :D

You might want to input the words "without infringing on a party's established
intellectual property rights" somewhere in the rights portion or something like
that. I'll post some other suggestions soon.

 

[DomeBase]

Revision 5/20/2007

It is time to revive this thread concerning the Registrant Code of rights and responsibilities started some time ago. The reasons for it have not gone away – they have grown.

I have integrated comments on the code from multiple sources (including two other forums besides this one) into the following revision. I have tried to integrate comments, but also keep it short. I eliminated the examples of hijacking and infringement because they are probably too much detail for a general code. The following is the result.

I propose further comments for a week and then, depending on what the venues say, an article in the DNJournal, CircleID, or other venue. Next steps might also include discussion with the IP and other constitencies. Comments?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domain Registrant’s Code of Rights and Responsibilities (revised 5/20/2007)

Rights:

1. COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT: Domain registrants have the right to register multiple domain names, develop them to a greater or lesser extent, earn revenue from them, and sell them for a profit. Domain registrants have the right to pay competitive prices for domain registrations, not prices based on unregulated monopoly power (e.g. for a given extension).

2. DIRECT NAVIGATION: Domain registrants have the right to have a domain name that is typed by a user into a web browser’s address bar continue to resolve to that domain name.

3. DOMAIN HIJACKING: Domain registrants have the right to register and use generic domains without attempts by trademark holders to over-reach trademark rights and hijack those domains.

Responsibilities:

4. TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: Domain registrants have the responsibility to avoid registering domains in bad faith that infringe on trademarks.

5. FREE LOADING: Domain registrants have the responsibility to pay registration costs and to avoid registering domains for short periods of time to get money from them without paying for them (known as “domain tasting” or “domain kiting”).

6. COMMON DECENCY: Domain registrants have the moral responsibility to avoid registration of domains in a manner that is likely to expose children to adult and/or harmful material. Also, while domain registrants have considerable latitude in what domains they can register and common decency can not be codified, domain registrants who voluntarily support this code should exercise a higher level of moral responsibility by avoiding registration of domains with the primary purpose of personally profiting from specific events of tragedy or human suffering. Registration of domains associated with such events for free distribution to non-profit parties or other genuine charitable purposes can serve the public good.

http://www.registrantscode.com

 

[DomeBase]

Someone's suggestion on a another forum sparked an idea for a really upbeat addition to the registrant’s code. How about adding the following? It is not a requirement, but it would really set the stage for moving our side of the issue to higher ground. As the press digs into the code, it would also be a chance for us to highlight the good that domainers have done. I know that I have contacted a number of non-profit organizations to let them know that their domains are expiring… and even picked up one or two and given some to them for free. What do you folks think of adding this to the “responsibilities” section? Folks who do not support this don’t have to do a thing – folks who do support it would be encouraged to do such good things and we would all work to get the story of the good things out there…

----------------- proposed addition to code http://www.registrantscode.com/ -----------

“Professional registrants who support this code are encouraged to use their skills and/or a portion or their earnings to make special contributions for the public good. For example, if a professional registrant notes that the domain for a non-profit charitable organization is expiring, then the professional registrant may make special effort to notify the organization before it expires in case the expiration is a mistake."

--------------------------------------------------

comments?

 

[HiSoC8Y]

great initiative.

maybe coordinate with DNOA to adapt it in the industry.

 

[goodkarmaco]

I will not support this agenda. A person can have just as high moral grounds for not contributing a certain name to a charity or even if they choose to register or profit from tragedy.

Pretty sure most domainers will want to keep the freedom they enjoy in regards to what names they personally choose to register.

No, I am not going to encourage a policy that in any way can have a judgemental connotation to myself or other domain owners. Don't think that will happen? Witness the name calling in this forum recently toward those who registered a tragedy domain.

If any kind of morality code like this is adopted the dividing nature of it will become apparent. Everything in this code except one little slant, ie the prompt to not profit from tragedy is already in place thru Icaan's policy, or the registrarr's that we are all now using.

We need to ask one question, where will this policy lead us and does it allow domain owners full control of how they choose to run their domain business?

We all support ethical business practices. More importantly we understand the freedom to choose is the only way the free market can work for the long term.

When considering domains to register, allow free choice to all in the domain business. I am not going to encourage a policy that in any way can have a judgemental connotation to myself or other domain owners.

 

[gpmgroup]

Image is everything - If domainers can not clean up their act from within the community the IP Lobby and Politicans will do it through Legislation.

Headlines like this (Front Page of the London Times) don't do Domainers any favours.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1810536.ece

 

[Ronald Regging]

I'm all for ethical domaining, but this isn't really about domainers as much as it is about media relations and how the media handles reporting on "cult groups."

I dont mean cult groups in the traditional religious sense, but in the sense of a small group of people whose interests/actions are not understood by the larger society in general. You have to understand that the media views themselves as the eyes and ears for "normal" society. They have people everywhere, reporting on everything of interest imaginable, that an average, normal person might like to know about. So when they catch wind of something in the shadows, something that has eluded them, eluded society, they naturally assume there must be something shady about it.

And they certainly have enough fuel for this, as there is no shortage of horror stories where some evil villain cybersquatter has attempted to rip off some poor, defenseless multi-national... My point being is that the media isn't going to hold our hand and walk us out of the dark, cult closet into the bright mainstream, promoting our efforts, values, and goals along the way. You know why? Because their job isn't to advance the acceptance of a small minority group amongst the masses. Their job is to guide the masses and protect them against potentially dangerous, small, minority groups.

People don't want to read about something that someone else is doing online with something that they themselves really don't understand or care about... But they do want to read about a small group of people who might possibly rip them off. And the media knows this and so they craft all of their stories in this fashion. And regardless of how many policies we as domainers adopt, and how hard we try to clean house in our industry, it still holds no real appeal to readers. Unless it's negatively effecting their lives, it really isn't effecting their lives, because they aren't a part of it. Therefore they don't care.

As for possible legislation... All I can say is pray... Because those who would like to enact this type of legislation have bottomless pockets with a gaggle of politicians in each...

I dont mean to sound so negative, because I personally agree with most of what you stated. I just feel that there needs to be some major organizing done in order to scratch the surface. And there needs to be major pushes by legitimate domainers/developers/businesses to mainstream domaining. Right now it seems like the major players in the industry seem perfectly content sitting back and making a nice profit. Until their livelihood is threatened, no major plays are being made. This is not the way it needs to be. And this is why in another thread I stated that we need to stop heralding the most successful and start placing our praise on those who are actually actively trying to legitimize the industry.

 

[iNod]

Enforcing this would be a bad one because of the Registrar's current ICANN setup rules. Registrar's are not really allowed to control what you do on your domain within "legal standards". Enforcing such rules on all registrars to allow for domain tasting is crude and will never happen.

Actually Domain Tasting is bad for the industry as large companies are grabbing domains by the system and dropping them 3-4 days later. Which is it became more common would lead to increase in fee's as the servers would be overloaded with drops/re-registers.

Some of those rules speaking from a registrar point of view don't follow the current ICANN rules setout for registrars. Plus it gets a lot more rights to the registerant than the registrar currently has. With this unbalance big companies which ICANN runs on will start complaining. No matter how strong the registerant population is, companies will complain.

We should stick to the current system and make some small changes to update the new systems such as domain tasting and monopolying costs.

Domain owners get a bad impression because the industry is new and many people don't know what it actually means when they see these "headlines". But in time this will soften out as more join the industry and find what it is actually like.

- Steve

 

[goodkarmaco]

Steve

I agree, no need to stir up the dust as that only clouds the horizon.

We are so funny when it comes to what others do. I find it confusing that almost all domainers from the little guy to the ground breakers worship those who are successful and big in making money in this business. We turn our heads to those who are big shots and it does not seem to matter that many of them are stepping on grey areas in their domain business.

For instance the Lams in the industry are profiting big time from typos, cybersquating, also buying countrys extension to take advantage of typos, such as .cm instead of .com and making millions by doing so. Well that is fine and all, but why jump on a few who want to register a name that has something to do with profiting from tragedy evernts?.

Untill the day that those who profit from porn, typos, redirecting traffic, etc. are addressed we should not call out a few who are buying tragedy names. Since it is a given that millions will continue to be made from vice names and such, lets not pound down a few who reg tragedy names.

The media love to write about how some guy sits at a traffic convention and makes millions by buying a few names. Domainers get excited to read such stories, but in fact how some of those domain owners got and continue to stay successful is by way of shady registering. So leave the few alone who may not have the moral insight to not reg tradegy domains.

That is a personal choice and as such we will not want a code to endorse that will limit domain owners expression of their free choice, unless it is illegal, it will do us good to allow others to run their business as they see fit.

I find it extremely hypocrital that a code should be written for a miniscule group who see it to their benefit to reg tragedy names, yet we "worship" those who got to be where they are regging names that that are "knock offs" of trademarked names. Speaking of worship, a Vancouver domainer , Mr. Lam is proud to say he is " Christian". He boasts he owns the name "satan.com". Got a issue with that? I don't, merely saying because a person has personal views ( christian faith) is no reason to judge a fellow domainer.

You or I may not want to own such a name, but as adults we know we have to allow others to express what they want, so to register a name is a personal choice. I am sure some christian's would wonder why another christian would promote ppc adds having to do with a satan name, but it is their choice. I have no problem with the name, but I am sure some would like to see the name not resolving on the internet.

The name or the tragedy is not so important as what is done with the name.

That is why I am opposed to any kind of labeling or banning of tragedy names. We simply do not know the intentions of the owner. Some may say at the time of the tragedy that the name 911.com is profiting from tragedy, but untill a site is built we cannot decide if the name is good or if it is bad. Then too if the owner is cold hearted and only looks for profit from the tragedy, the name may be sold in the future and the new owner may decide to have good intentions with the name. I say look the other way, let the market and free choice decide what sites are revelent to todays traffic.

This is the headline of a story about domaining I would like to see, " the domain business is a free market one, although as a group most do not wish to profit from tragedy events, it is allowed as it is not illegal to do so, the domain group understands that for the internet to flourish search traffic is the dominating factor and free choice must be allowed in the registering of domains".

 

[Joan]

Well, I think pretty much all bases have been covered except for maybe one or two.

1. The only problem with this type of thing is that you get the "honest" domainer to join but in domain ownership as in anything else in life (i.e. gun registration) you end up getting the "honest" people to join but the "dishonest" people will have nothing to do with it and will continue with their vile ways of using and abusing. There is nothing in this which stipulates what will happen should you NOT follow the Registrant Code. So why would the pirates, thieves and domainers with poor taste even worry about the fact that the Registrant Code even exists.

2. I also think that there should be something in the Registrant Code about spamming other domains with tonnes of domain links in a post. This is offensive to the "honest" domainer in having to clean up their domain from these freaks. But again, how do you intend to monitor and punish those that don't abide?

I think the basic idea is good but I just don't see how it will come to fruition with the people it really needs to monitor. If you can find a way to do this then I will back it 100%.