An article just published in Computeworld, “Domain-name wars: Rise of the cybersquatters” confirms ICA predictions that if brand owners are able to implement their unbalanced Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for new gTLDs they will quickly move to use the same illicit, backdoor process to have it imposed on incumbent gTLDs — including .com.
Referring to the package of proposals contained in the report of the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT), a short-lived ad hoc group with a membership and agenda controlled by ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), the article quotes IPC head Steve Metalitz:
Unfortunately, the proposal applies only to new GTLDs when it’s the existing ones that cause the biggest problems, Metalitz says. Even if every recommendation is adopted for the new GTLDs, getting the same rules applied to existing domains like .com will be tough, he adds. "The problem is, you have entrenched interests that are resistant to change," he says.
Even more worrisome is the response from Paul Levins, head of ICANN’s Washington, DC office:
However, ICANN may be able to apply the new rules as existing registrar contracts expire, Levins says. "We may be able to retrofit the features that are in the new GTLD agreements to address abuse."
Trademark representatives quoted in the article also make a determined effort to portray illegitimate, infringing cybersquatting and non-infringing, legitimate parked PPC domains as one and the same — for example, Verizon Counsel Sarah Deutsch:
Domainers make a living by keeping thousands — or hundreds of thousands — of domain names. While some domainers are legitimate, most are not, Verizon’s Deutsche contends.
Nowhere in the article is it noted that Verizon and other ISPs run their own monetized ads against typos of nonexistent domain names typed in by their broadband subscribers, and that they therefore stand to directly profit if they can change the UDRP to acquire or suspend legitimate parked domains.
The article does provide some balance, but even that is incomplete:
Drawing a distinction between domain-name brand abuse (cybersquatting) and domain parking is important, says Jeffrey Eckhaus, general manager at domain registrar eNom Inc. in Bellevue, Wash. "Cybersquatting is illegal in the U.S., while domaining is a legitimate business," he says. ENom supports domainers with advertising services, but domaining is "not the main focus of eNom’s business," Eckhaus says.
But domain parking is part of the core business model for some registrars, including Cambridge, Mass.-based Sedo.com LLC, says Steve Metalitz, president of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), an ICANN-sanctioned organization that advocates on behalf of brand owners.
What the article fails to note is that Sedo and other parking service providers have strong internal programs designed to minimize inadvertent infringement and to provide brand owners with expedited, no-cost mechanisms to take action against domains that they believe to be infringing their rights.
No responsible party excuses deliberate cyber- or typo-squatting, much less the serving up of illegal porn, malware, fake pharmaceuticals, or other harms. But the article makes clear that some trademark representatives are up to their old practice of trying to unfairly tar legitimate, competing business models with the taint of illegal and disreputable practices to serve their own ends.
Here at the ICANN meeting in Sydney the IRT Report, and the process by which it was created, has been subjected to withering criticisms from a broad array of business and public interests. ICA has asked the ICANN Board to use the IRT Report as the starting point for an open, transparent, and balanced process of UDRP reform that will address brand owners’ valid criticisms of the UDRP but that will also make changes to eliminate the growing abuses experienced by domain registrants. Such a process would result in a much improved UDRP across all gTLDs, both new and incumbent, that recognizes the legitimate rights and interests of all parties. ICA will continue to press for such a fair and balanced process, while steadfastly maintaining that ICANN has no authority to dictate the business models employed by domain registrants when there is no trademark infringement or illegality associated with them.