I would agree with Rick on this one.  Simply acquiring thousands of domains is not the answer, irrespective of any cost reductions, Considering all the variations that can be registered against a TM (and there's always more...), imagine what that could be like with hundreds of new gTLDs and the wider use of IDNs. Personally, I begrudge lining the coffers of registries, registrars and ICANN, while the underlying problem remains unresolved.  

I would prefer to look at prevention rather than cures, so that sufficient deterrents are in place to minimise the opportunities of abuse and infringements in the first place.  Realistically, this will not be a single solution but a multiple set of policies and tools, not all of which may sit neatly within ICANN's remit. 

Kind regards, 

Martin 

Martin C SUTTON 

Manager, Group Fraud Risk & Intelligence 

Global Security & Fraud Risk

8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom 

______________________________________________________________

Phone.   +44 (0)207 991 8074 

Fax.   +44 (0)207 992 4669 

Mobile.   +44 (0)777 4556680 

Email.   martinsutton@hsbc.com 

Internet.   www.hsbc.com 

______________________________________________________________

I know that in our firm it is not really the $7 registration fees which are the issue, even though x hundreds of registrations it adds up.  The more serious cost is the tens of thousands of dollars in lost time while people sort these things out (usually in the legal department, an expensive resource), without even getting into the thousands more occasionally required for a UDRP or for the legal threats and wrangling preceding one. It is this lost time and trouble which I believe most people find the most aggravating and wasteful, moreso than the registration fees per se, and regarding which the thought of mutiplying it xfold for new TLDs is anathema.  

It sound like you are applying your creative juices in the right direction, if you can develop a method which fairly preserves the (bonafide) rights of TMholders with minimal hassle, then you may well significantly lessen the reflexive antagonism re new TLDs. 

cheers/Rick

Rick Anderson

EVP, InterBorder Holdings Ltd

email: randerson@interborder.ca

cell: (403) 830-1798

office: (403) 750-5535

----- Original Message -----

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org <owner-bc-gnso@icann.org>

To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@icann.org>

Sent: Mon Jul 06 23:03:03 2009

Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Finding Common Ground Between Markholders and Legitimate Domain Registrants

Hi Rick,

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Rick Anderson wrote:

> What I see wrong in this notion - at least as described here - is that it probably encourages tasting, squatting, speculation as much as it assists TMholders.  The unintended effect of subsidizing these activities is not a great plan.

Thanks for the feedback. One method to refine the concept further is

to truly limit things to defensive registrations (as opposed to

speculative registrations at lower cost) through a link to an active

"base" domain name (one that does resolve). For example, the domain

typo generator at DomainTools.com spits out a number of matches for

"Verizon":

http://www.domaintools.com/domain-typo/?q=verizon&mode=reg&status=b&rules%5B%5D=qwerty&rules%5B%5D=swap&rules%5B%5D=sticky&rules%5B%5D=look

Let's say that the "base" domain name is declared to be Verizon.com.

Then if Verizon wanted to own verizoln.com or verizom.com, but the

traffic from those domains wasn't worth $7/yr to Verizon (i.e. it

doesn't "pay" for them resolve), they could pay say $3/yr to register

them but have no nameservers, at the same time linking it to

Verizon.com. They could do the same for domains in other TLDs,

declaring them "defensive registrations" that all link to one base

domain that does resolve.

One could develop an algorithm to test whether a domain that is

declared as "defensive" is similar enough to that base domain name to

qualify (e.g. a certain number of common characters, common typos like

wwwdomain.com, etc.). An algorithm probably wouldn't capture 100% of

defensive registrations, but it could probably reduce costs for a

healthy fraction of them.

There could also be a function to list all defensive registrations

(with no nameservers) for a given base domain, to make abusers easier

to bring to justice. For example, let's say someone other than Disney

did own wwwdisney.com and used that as their active "base" domain for

speculative but low traffic domains (which didn't generate $7/yr worth

of traffic) such as wwwdisney.org. A markholder would be able to more

easily capture the entire set of typos that didn't resolve (and thus

were registered under the lower cost system) in one action because of

that linkage.

> As well, what actually makes sense with these secondary TM registrations is to point them at the primary site (rather than to leave them to non-resolve).  That's a better user experience, and if the holder has to go to the effort of registering them (a bigger cost really than the reg cost), whatever traffic they may generate may as well find its destination.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If the domain doesn't generate $7/yr

worth of traffic, a markholder might still keep the domain registered

in order to avoid facing the UDRP and legal costs of $5,000+ if the

domain is abused by someone else. If these marginal names could face

lower carrying costs (say $3/yr instead of $7/yr), that cost savings

could be dramatic, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per

year.

Registry operators might not be happy by the loss of "fully priced"

defensive registration fees that they're used to currently, but that's

not a suitable business model to begin with. Depending on the

elasticity of demand, ironically registries might even actually

increase the number and total revenues from defensive registrations,

as the lower price for domains deemed "defensive" would actually

increase the total number registered and possibly the total

profitability for the registry.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. In the event this e-mail is sent to you in error, sender and sender’s company do not waive confidentiality or privilege, and waiver may not be assumed. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of, or action taken in reliance on, the contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have been sent this e-mail in error, please destroy all copies and notify sender at the above e-mail address.

Computer viruses can be transmitted by e-mail. You should check this e-mail message and any attachments for viruses. Sender and sender’s company accept no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. Like other forms of communication, e-mail communications may be vulnerable to interception by unauthorized parties. If you do not wish to communicate by e-mail, please notify sender. In the absence of such notification, your consent is assumed. Sender will not take any additional security measures (such as encryption) unless specifically requested.

************************************************************

HSBC Holdings plc

Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom

Registered in England number 617987

************************************************************

----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.