Danny Younger wrote:

"What’s In A Name: The State of Typo-Squatting 2007" http://us.mcafee.com/root/identitytheft.asp?id=safe_typo&cid=38296

The research reveals the need for a fair amount of policy work; here are a few suggestions that came to mind after having read the McAfee research:

These are all interesting points, but the response you suggest is IMO regarding the rights of trademark holders. Trademark holders already have an active constituency within ICANN and can be counted on to press for those rights up to -- and often well beyond -- reasonable reponse. By contrast, At-Large should be examining these issues from the point of view of the public; those who use the Internet and those who register legitimate domains. It is not our role to get involved in disputes between trademark holders and squatters _except for_ those specific consequences that affect the public use of the Net. Specifically, we need to ensure that the trademark-owner response to such research is not worse than the problem it claims to fix; I have no desire to eliminate the ability to create domains intended for parody or criticism that are close in spelling to the domains of their intended targets. Our mandate is not to champion the protection of trademarks; it is to ensure the most possible safe and easy access by the public to the Internet resources it seeks. The components of this issue that matter to At-Large are, IMO: - Does typosquatting affect those who are trying to register legitimate, non-infringing domains? - Since there are so many different ways to mistype words -- a problem surely to be exacerbated by IDNs -- how far should regulators go in crimimalizing/deleting word mutations? - Is the problem in the misspelling itself, or in the purpose of the misspelled site? If a "misspelled" domain is a parody or criticism site, should trademark holders have absolute right to curtail such activity? How does it serve the public good to fast-track such harm to freedom of speech? - What percent of the web browsing public actually types in the location (as opposed to searching for it on a search engine or getting there through another link)? I'm sure that many Internet users are aware of the ability of Google and others to detect search-term misspellings and suggest correct alternatives. I personally use that facility frequently, even when using (what I believe to be) proper domain names. - To what extent is phishing aided by the concerns of the McAfee report? Would regulation of typo-squatters curtail phishing? - What problems can/should be curtailed through advances in browser technology, rather than in increased domain regulation and bureaucracy? If browsers can automatically prepend "www" to a domain name before browsing, and can do common spellchecks of composed text, surely they can add a check for mistypings such as the 'missing dot' problem Danny identifies. The whole concept of trademarks, as a public benefit, is to allow consistent identification of goods. The use of trademarks to curtail criticism, parody or comparison -- a use championed by trademark holders in ICANN and elsewhere -- is an abuse of their purpose and goes against the public good. We, as the representatives within ICANN of the public at-large, must stay focused on the perspective of "what serves the public good". - Evan