Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign
BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign¹s proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here¹s how VeriSign describes the service:
Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed.
For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with ³free domains included² ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that¹s where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of ³domain tasting² that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. ³Domain tasting² is a loaded term in ICANN circles. ³Tasting² is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by ³parking² a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there¹s nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here¹s what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That¹s cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to ³taste² and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They¹re also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that¹s easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let¹s begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services:
ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There¹s no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html
If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability.
ICANN¹s Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. ³In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service.²
So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should simply be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted... From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Hello All, I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so. Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this request within the 15 day time frame. If there are no proposed contractual modifications, no Board action would be required. Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to address our concerns. Best regards, Michael Palage <BEGIN QUESTIONS> Question1: Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date." The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity. VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange: ? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP"). ? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a modification or update to an existing registration ? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following criteria: o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain name; o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top Level Domain; o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30 calendar days; o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30 calendar days; and o The incoming domain name must be available. ? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will execute the exchange by updating the registry database: o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the incoming domain name; o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be returned to the available pool following expiration of the pending delete period; o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the registration including create date, expiration date, name servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for incoming domain name; and o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange after 30 calendar days. ? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP Interface. ? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date. ? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois. Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for this WhoWas feature or will it be free? As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and operational costs of providing the service. Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom will they be provided. Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP and web interfaces. <END QUESTIONS> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
I share the concern with this proposal. I believe there is a parallel to the BC position on vertical separation of R & Rs. It should be up to the proponents of change to make the case that the change will NOT add to the likelihood of abuse. I support an attempt at Council to slow it down. I support in parallel one to one dialogue with VeriSign. Philip
I like the proposal Mike R. has put on the table. Given that ICANN previously closed the loophole on the AGP to deter tasting, which clearly affected the stability of DNS operations, why couldn't we put forth a call for review since this service has the potential to destabilize the remedy ICANN already fixed? Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:24 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Hello All, I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so. Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this request within the 15 day time frame. If there are no proposed contractual modifications, no Board action would be required. Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to address our concerns. Best regards, Michael Palage <BEGIN QUESTIONS> Question1: Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date." The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity... VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange: ? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP"). ? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a modification or update to an existing registration ? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following criteria: o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain name; o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top Level Domain; o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30 calendar days; o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30 calendar days; and o The incoming domain name must be available. ? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will execute the exchange by updating the registry database: o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the incoming domain name; o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be returned to the available pool following expiration of the pending delete period; o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the registration including create date, expiration date, name servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for incoming domain name; and o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange after 30 calendar days. ? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP Interface. ? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date. ? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois. Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for this WhoWas feature or will it be free? As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and operational costs of providing the service. Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom will they be provided. Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP and web interfaces. <END QUESTIONS> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted... From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
I support Mike R's proposed text and Sarah's recommendation. RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:58 AM To: Michael D. Palage; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign I like the proposal Mike R. has put on the table. Given that ICANN previously closed the loophole on the AGP to deter tasting, which clearly affected the stability of DNS operations, why couldn't we put forth a call for review since this service has the potential to destabilize the remedy ICANN already fixed? Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:24 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Hello All, I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so. Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this request within the 15 day time frame. If there are no proposed contractual modifications, no Board action would be required. Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to address our concerns. Best regards, Michael Palage <BEGIN QUESTIONS> Question1: Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date." The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity. VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange: ? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP"). ? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a modification or update to an existing registration ? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following criteria: o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain name; o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top Level Domain; o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30 calendar days; o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30 calendar days; and o The incoming domain name must be available. ? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will execute the exchange by updating the registry database: o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the incoming domain name; o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be returned to the available pool following expiration of the pending delete period; o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the registration including create date, expiration date, name servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for incoming domain name; and o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange after 30 calendar days. ? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP Interface. ? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date. ? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois. Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for this WhoWas feature or will it be free? As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and operational costs of providing the service. Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom will they be provided. Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP and web interfaces. <END QUESTIONS> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Cyveillance's representatives in the BC support Mike's proposed text. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:16 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign I support Mike R's proposed text and Sarah's recommendation. RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:58 AM To: Michael D. Palage; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign I like the proposal Mike R. has put on the table. Given that ICANN previously closed the loophole on the AGP to deter tasting, which clearly affected the stability of DNS operations, why couldn't we put forth a call for review since this service has the potential to destabilize the remedy ICANN already fixed? Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:24 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Hello All, I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so. Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this request within the 15 day time frame. If there are no proposed contractual modifications, no Board action would be required. Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to address our concerns. Best regards, Michael Palage <BEGIN QUESTIONS> Question1: Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date." The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity... VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange: ? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP"). ? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a modification or update to an existing registration ? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following criteria: o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain name; o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top Level Domain; o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30 calendar days; o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30 calendar days; and o The incoming domain name must be available. ? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will execute the exchange by updating the registry database: o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the incoming domain name; o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be returned to the available pool following expiration of the pending delete period; o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the registration including create date, expiration date, name servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for incoming domain name; and o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange after 30 calendar days. ? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP Interface. ? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date. ? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois. Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for this WhoWas feature or will it be free? As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and operational costs of providing the service. Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom will they be provided. Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP and web interfaces. <END QUESTIONS> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted... From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
Thanks to those that have commented so far. Based on that feedback, I will introduce the motion to the GNSO Council. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Caleb Queern Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:44 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Cyveillance's representatives in the BC support Mike's proposed text. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:16 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign I support Mike R's proposed text and Sarah's recommendation. RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 + 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:58 AM To: Michael D. Palage; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign I like the proposal Mike R. has put on the table. Given that ICANN previously closed the loophole on the AGP to deter tasting, which clearly affected the stability of DNS operations, why couldn't we put forth a call for review since this service has the potential to destabilize the remedy ICANN already fixed? Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:24 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Hello All, I am not a big fan of this proposal. While there may be some market for it, I have a concern that there is the potential for more harm than good. That being said, this registry service request has been submitted in accordance with the Funnel Request set forth in the registry agreement and which gives ICANN a very limited number of grounds to deny a request (i) could raise significant Security or Stability issues or (ii) could raise significant competition issues.. Again, while I personally do not like this service, I do not see how either of these criteria are met, and I do not believe these criteria could be objectively met by the GNSO Council passing a resolution saying so. Therefore, it is mostly likely that ICANN staff will approve this request within the 15 day time frame. If there are no proposed contractual modifications, no Board action would be required. Listed below are some questions which I have asked of VeriSign and the answers that they have provided. I think Steve and the other BC leaders should reach out to VeriSign and see if they would be willing to provide a briefing on this service to the stakeholder group. Perhaps there may be some implement options that VeriSign would be willing to consider to address our concerns. Best regards, Michael Palage <BEGIN QUESTIONS> Question1: Is the exchange fee paid each time a name is exchanged after waiting the 30 days, or is the exchange fee paid once and unlimited changes are permitted for one year provided that the 30 day calendar lock down period is honored. The reason I am asking is that I am trying to reconcile the following language in the funnel request ""The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date." The exchange fee is charged upon initial exchange, subsequent exchanges during the exchange term are not charged an exchange fee. In the Business Description section of the Domain Exchange RSEP we provide the business rules, and I've highlighted two rules which address Michael's statement around "unlimited changes", just for clarity. VeriSign will offer the Domain Name Exchange Service to all .ICANN accredited -registrars in good standing for the .net top level domain. In order to complete a Domain Name Exchange: ? Registrars shall process the transaction through their connections to the Shared Registration System ("SRS") via the Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP"). ? Registrars will provide the registry with the necessary data to process the exchange, including the outgoing domain name and the incoming domain name. This transaction will be processed as a modification or update to an existing registration ? The registry will validate that the exchange meets the following criteria: o Registrar must be the registrar-of-record for the outgoing domain name; o The outgoing and incoming domain name must be within the same Top Level Domain; o The outgoing domain name must have been registered for a minimum of 30 calendar days; o The outgoing domain has not been exchanged within the previous 30 calendar days; and o The incoming domain name must be available. ? When an exchange transaction has passed validation, the registry will execute the exchange by updating the registry database: o The registry will modify the domain name for the specified registration by deleting the outgoing registration and inserting the incoming domain name; o The outgoing domain name will have a pending delete status and be returned to the available pool following expiration of the pending delete period; o The incoming domain name will "inherit" all attributes of the registration including create date, expiration date, name servers, and statuses. Therefore, there is no Add Grace Period for incoming domain name; and o The incoming domain name will only be eligible for subsequent exchange after 30 calendar days. ? The registry will return a successful response through the EPP Interface. ? The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date. ? The registry will propagate the change in DNS and Whois. Question 2: VeriSign has touted the use of its WhoWas verification as a mechanism to help identify potential abuse. Will VRSN be charging for this WhoWas feature or will it be free? As stated in the Who Was Registry Service proposal there will be a nominal fee in order to offset the implementation, maintenance and operational costs of providing the service. Question 3: VeriSign says that it will publish "a report that lists the domain names exchanged as part of a registration." Will there be a fee for accessing these reports, and how will they be provided and to whom will they be provided. Domain Exchange reports like all activity reports will be provided to the registrar of record at no cost, and made available over existing FTP and web interfaces. <END QUESTIONS> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 6:43 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign It would be good to get clarification on several issues from Verisign. Do you think they would talk to the BC about their proposal? Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Inc. 1601 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, CA Phone - 650 485-6064 Cell - 650 387 3904 NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, or retransmit the email or its contents." From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 3:23 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Ooops, my post was missing an important "NOT" in second sentence, now inserted. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:50 PM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Thanks both Steve and Sarah for the thoughtful posts. I agree this proposal needs further consideration and public comment, and should NOT be 'rubber-stamped' by ICANN, like most RSEP proposals. It certainly has the potential to unravel a lot of the progress made with the AGP Limits policy. Another mitigation step could be to limit the percentage of any registrar's domains that can be exchanged, similar to the AGP Limits policy. We could make a motion for the next GNSO Council meeting on 4/21, to see if the Council would ask Staff to conduct further consideration. The deadline for such a motion is 4/13. I suspect it would have broad support from the NCSG, and probably none from the CSG, but it might still pass depending upon attendance at the meeting, and in any event ought to serve the purpose. Individual member and constituency comments should also be submitted to ICANN directly. Do we have BC consensus at least on the following? [DRAFT] The BC requests that Staff make the preliminary determination, with respect to Versign's RSEP proposal for "domain exchange" services in the .net TLD, that this proposal requires further study because it could raise significant issues with security and stability and/or competition. Specifically, the proposal may permit resumption of commercial "domain tasting" activities which have been curbed by the AGP Limits policy, and therefore appropriate limitations on the proposed registry service must be considered. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 2:19 PM To: Steve DelBianco; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign Steve, Thanks for giving all of us more background on the proposed Verisign service. My view is that because this proposal could pass through very quickly with little ICANN input and has very serious potential consequences for businesses and brand owners, we should quickly reach out to ICANN staff and tell them that there are enough concerns that the process must be slowed down and studied carefully. The concerns I've raised have nothing to do with someone registering generic names. Whether we call it "tasting" or something else, the fact remains that this service allows someone for the price of a single domain name, to register at least 12 different domain names a year. So, if you spent $8 to register 100 domain names under the exchange service, you could wind up registering nearly 10,000 different domain names. On its face, this seems to be a recipe for mischief and abuse. When we had full blown domain name tasting under the AGP for free, the number of infringements skyrocketed, but even today, brand owners face thousands of instances of new infringements because cybersquatters are still willing to pay a relatively low registration fee for the high quality names that drive traffic. The recent report on cybersquatting out of Harvard shows that even vigilant companies like Verizon still face many hundreds of typosquatting incidents -- all from infringers who are willing to pay a fee for our trademarked names. The report estimates that the top 100,000 websites containing cybersquatted domains collectively receive at least 68.2 million daily visitors. If these cybersquatted sites were considered as a single website, they would be ranked by Alexa as the 10th most popular website in the world. So it is reasonable to be concerned that a service which allows one to register multiple domain names for a single price will only add to this problem. I appreciate that Verisign believes it has taken some steps to make their service more "transparent," but I don't believe transparency is the same as fixing your business model to prevent infringements in the first place. A few questions, comments and ideas: 1) A "free" reporting service on exchanged names is better than no reporting service -- but it appears that the burden, administrative costs and enforcement costs shifts to business and brand holders, who on a daily or even hourly basis, must check this reporting service for possible infringements. What will Verisign do when the brand holder writes to them and demands they stop selling the name? My guess is that they would not be accountable for taking this name out of circulation and the trademark owner would be sending numerous cease and desist letters, filing more UDRP actions and filing more lawsuits. 2) Your mention of the WHOWAS service does not say whether this will be provided for free or at a cost. In any case, the same concerns about pushing the burden on trademark owners remains. Also, what steps does Verisign intend to take to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in its WHOIS, WHOAS and its reporting service associated with this service? Will it permit applicants to "exchange" names through a proxy service? 3) Will there be a cap on the number of domain names someone could register under the exchange service? If Verisign is serious about limiting harms to brand owners, why not: 1) Limit the service to generic names only? Why not allow trademark owners to provide Verisign with a list of their registered trademarks that should not be permitted to be sold under the exchange service and allow them to opt names out of this service? 2) Why not build in protections for the trademark owner up front when offering the service? For example, when an applicant searches for the availability of a name, the trademarked names provided by owners who opt out would pop up with a warning telling the applicant that the name is a trademark owned by a third party, warning them about the penalties associated with cybersquatting and requiring them to declare that they have a legal right to use such name. 3) Why not beef up requirements for accurate WHOIS contact information and prohibit exhanging names through a proxy? Obviously, the issues are all quite complicated as are the potential fixes, so more reason that this proposal be slowed down and studied carefully with all affected stakeholders. Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 _____ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:05 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] Assessing the "Domain Name Exchange" service proposed by VeriSign BC Members: On April 5, VeriSign (operator of .com, .net, and .name) proposed a new registry service called "Domain Name Exchange." VeriSign's proposal and QA& is posted at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/verisign-dnex-05apr10-en.pdf Here's how VeriSign describes the service: Based on ongoing discussions with registrars who represent diverse business models and market segments, VeriSign has developed the concept for the Domain Name Exchange Service to allow a registrar to repurpose a domain name registration that has significant time remaining until expiration. Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market. The domain exchange will allow a registrar to offer another registrant a package that sits on top of that same registration using a new domain. The Domain Name Exchange Service is an optional service that is designed to provide registrars and registrants with an effective and efficient way to manage domain name registration terms for domain names that are no longer needed. For many website hosting service providers, the registration of a domain name is a secondary service. For example, the European registrar 1and1 offers web hosting with "free domains included" ( http://1and1.eu ) in order to attract new clients to establish their online presence. Domain Exchange lets 1&1 re-use the registration if a client wants to drop the website and domain after just a few months. Registrars would pay around 1.5x the cost of a regular annual registration in order to get the Exchange option, and they could exchange once per month. Perhaps there will be significant demand for this service from registrars who have lots of turnover with hosting clients. Domain Exchange is being proposed only for .net domains, but VeriSign may propose it for .com at some point. And that's where several BC officers are already raising concerns that Domain Exchange could be a new form of "domain tasting" that would lead to even more cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. "Domain tasting" is a loaded term in ICANN circles. "Tasting" is how domainers test a domain name to learn whether type-in traffic generates enough advertising revenue to cover costs of registering the domain. The names typically tasted were generic words and phrases (like SpringCleaning.com or SpringFashions.com) that some users might guess at by entering the URL ( instead of going thru a page-ranked search engine). Domainers make money on these domain names by "parking" a page with ads for related products and services. The parked pages that result from tasted names are objectionable in the way that highway billboards are objectionable, but there's nothing illegal about monetizing domain traffic with advertising. Moreover, several BC members are domainers who monetize traffic this way, and other BC members providing online advertising services to support the trade. But nothing infuriates BC members and Internet users more than tasting or parking domains that involve trademarked terms or typographical variants designed to deceive users. Cybersquatting and typosquatting could increase if a new service makes it easier to discover domain names that mislead users into thinking they have landed on a page belonging to a known business or organization they intended to reach. Domainers discovered they could taste traffic for 5 days for zero cost by using the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has always been offered by registrars and registries. That led to rampant tasting in domains like .com. The ICANN community, incl many in the BC, pushed ICANN to end the practice of free tasting thru abuse of the AGP privilege. Using the policy development process, ICANN effectively eliminated free AGP tasting in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agp-policy-17dec08-en.htm ) Question is, will a new Domain Exchange service increase the incidence of trademark and typographical squatting? I asked my friends at VeriSign (a NetChoice member) about this concern, and here's what I learned: Domain Exchange is not going to replace the free and unchecked tasting that was done with AGP before 2009. First, a domain 'taster' has to actually buy a 1-year registration to be able to use domain exchange at 11 monthly intervals. That's cheaper than buying a dozen registrations, but its not free. Second, it would take a year just to 'taste' a dozen names for ad traffic. Still, VeriSign acknowledges that some parties may see Domain Exchange as a way to "taste" and then register names that infringe on trademarks. So VeriSign is offering additional IP protection tools described in their proposal, such as limitations on exchanges, free reporting on exchanged names, and the WhoWas service (a permanent record of historical Whois). VeriSign is open to suggestions from the BC (and IPC) about other tools that would minimize use of Domain Exchange for TM infringement or other illegal purposes. They're also prepared to answer questions in a direct dialogue with our members if that's easier and quicker than using the public comment process described below. So let's begin internal discussions on BC List, with an intent to send concerns and questions to staff, to VeriSign, and eventually in ICANN public comments. Finally, a word about the ICANN process for review and approval of new registry services: ICANN evaluates new registry services thru its Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP). ICANN staff has 15-days to make a "preliminary determination" whether this Registry Service requires further consideration by ICANN because it could raise significant issues with Security & Stability or competition. There's no official comment period during these 15 days, but BC members can always explain concerns to staff. See RSEP at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html If ICANN determines that the service might raise significant Stability or Security issues, it goes to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel and simultaneously invites public comment on the proposal (2nd chance to comment). This panel has 45 days to do a written report regarding the proposed service effect on Security or Stability. ICANN's Board then posts the report for public comment (3rd chance to comment), and the Board has 30 days to reach a decision. "In the event the ICANN Board reasonably determines that the proposed Registry Service creates a reasonable risk of a meaningful adverse effect on Stability or Security, Registry Operator will not offer the proposed Registry Service." So there are 2 or 3 chances to comment over a period of 45 days (or 90 days if the panel raises S&S concerns).
participants (8)
-
Caleb Queern -
Deutsch, Sarah B -
Michael D. Palage -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Philip Sheppard -
Ron Andruff -
Steve DelBianco -
Susan Kawaguchi