Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] URS / UDRP proposals -- data on registrar/registry compliance costs
Hi Maxim, On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
These days, criminals interact on purely economical basis, and weakened interaction between
Yes, that's a very important point that should not be lost in all this debate. The URS and UDRP don't really attack the economic aspect of cybercrime (including cybersquatting) very well, in my opinion. That's why the Verizon/iREIT lawsuit was so effective (as previously discussed on this mailing list), as was as the Verizon/OnlineNic case: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/technology/companies/25verizon.html https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/27/onlinenic_verizon_ruling_upheld/ Remember that scene from Batman? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS7NaktQ8g "I want you to tell all your friends about me." Those highly publicized cases told active and prospective cybersquatters all about Verizon, and not to mess with them. I'm sure many cybersquatters cleared out their portfolios of anything Verizon-related due to these actions. We've also seen evidence of the decline in the profitability of cybersquatting by looking at how many UDRP cases CitizenHawk has filed over time: http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=citizenhawk&search=text&results=100&s... Just 3 cases in 2018 so far. As many members of this PDP are likely already aware, they file UDRPs on behalf of companies at no cost up front, but in exchange they monetize the traffic from the domains that are won: https://icannwiki.org/CitizenHawk The fact that we've seen such a sharp decline in cases they've brought is consistent with the fact that cybersquatting is less profitable than it used to be, because the problem has been addressed in other ways (e.g. getting domains banned at various monetization services like Google Adsense or parking companies, affiliate programs, credit card processors, hosting companies, Google Safebrowsing, etc.). CitizenHawk is driven purely by economics, so there are just fewer profitable typosquatting domains out there that they can successfully target via their business model. In conclusion, consistent with your statement, attacking the economics of cybercrime in more targeted manner (to deter the practice because it's simply unprofitable) is far more effective than to try to "punish" the criminals with a "weak" domain transfer (UDRP) or suspension (URS). The biggest criminals tend to be highly rational economic actors, otherwise they don't survive in "business" very long. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Hi again, FYI, Maxim's email that I quoted from below doesn't actually appear in the RPM PDP archives: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-September/date.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ so I think only Greg Shatan and I saw it. (Maxim's email was a response to Greg's email) Maxim might want to resend that earlier email in its entirety, so that everyone else can benefit from its knowledge (it probably was sent from the wrong "From" address, i.e. not the email address that is subscribed to this mailing list, but one that received the email via forwarding; I received it as I was on the "cc" list after a "Reply All" to Greg's email) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:27 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Maxim,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:10 AM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
These days, criminals interact on purely economical basis, and weakened interaction between
Yes, that's a very important point that should not be lost in all this debate. The URS and UDRP don't really attack the economic aspect of cybercrime (including cybersquatting) very well, in my opinion. That's why the Verizon/iREIT lawsuit was so effective (as previously discussed on this mailing list), as was as the Verizon/OnlineNic case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/technology/companies/25verizon.html https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/27/onlinenic_verizon_ruling_upheld/
Remember that scene from Batman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS7NaktQ8g
"I want you to tell all your friends about me."
Those highly publicized cases told active and prospective cybersquatters all about Verizon, and not to mess with them. I'm sure many cybersquatters cleared out their portfolios of anything Verizon-related due to these actions.
We've also seen evidence of the decline in the profitability of cybersquatting by looking at how many UDRP cases CitizenHawk has filed over time:
http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=citizenhawk&search=text&results=100&s...
Just 3 cases in 2018 so far. As many members of this PDP are likely already aware, they file UDRPs on behalf of companies at no cost up front, but in exchange they monetize the traffic from the domains that are won:
https://icannwiki.org/CitizenHawk
The fact that we've seen such a sharp decline in cases they've brought is consistent with the fact that cybersquatting is less profitable than it used to be, because the problem has been addressed in other ways (e.g. getting domains banned at various monetization services like Google Adsense or parking companies, affiliate programs, credit card processors, hosting companies, Google Safebrowsing, etc.). CitizenHawk is driven purely by economics, so there are just fewer profitable typosquatting domains out there that they can successfully target via their business model.
In conclusion, consistent with your statement, attacking the economics of cybercrime in more targeted manner (to deter the practice because it's simply unprofitable) is far more effective than to try to "punish" the criminals with a "weak" domain transfer (UDRP) or suspension (URS). The biggest criminals tend to be highly rational economic actors, otherwise they don't survive in "business" very long.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (1)
-
George Kirikos