New Bill Threatens Domain Registrants and Poses Risks to Internet Commerce

[gorilla_bob]

I think this is of major concern. Is ICA the right organization to spearhead this campaign.

It's very important that this does not go through.... I had done alot of business in the poker industry and when the legislation came in to kill the poker industry in the US... it did just that. The online poker industry has now been severely crippled because of legislation passed by the Bush Administration.

The same thing can easily happen to the domain industry if we are not careful.

Bob

[hiOsilver]

Wrong. Maybe they will end up helping domain owners, maybe not. Phil Corwin is lobbying on behalf of the likes of sedo so they can keep displaying infringing keywords on their PPC pages (see myspace.co.uk decision). If you think they care anything about you or your domains then I suggest you look into them a little more closely.

It is your money. If you want to send it to support sedo's business plan then go ahead.

This is a very naive post. The ICA represents all domain owners. The problem is that not enough of us our supporting the ICA. I am one of the first paying members, and I just responded to Elliot's challenge, donating an extra $500 to ICA. The ICA also represents domainers at ICANN. I was at the ICANN meeting in LA late last year, and saw how effectively Phil Corwin represented you and me. Domainers need to be represented in Washington and at ICANN. If you think that you are more effective working on your own, then you do not have a clue.

The real issue is not "Is it your money?". The real issue is "Is it your domain?". If we do not work together on this, then the answer is going to be "Not for long".

Picking on one supporter of the ICA, like Sedo, as a rationalization of why not to put your money where business interests lie, is just plain naive.

[Keyword Factory]

The major sponsors of ICA are:

Oversee.net
sedo
SevenMile.com
T.R.A.F.F.I.C.

the ICA will do what is best for them, or whover else pays them the most. That may or may not be what is best for you.

You need to look at your busniess plan and decide where to put your money. If you think sending it to DC lobbyists will help you then have at it.

[NameCharger]

Today I've been sending emails to organizations (including the ACLU), citing the bill's name & number, noting "protecting First Amendment rights, serving the common good of the people and not Big Business, protecting citizens from predatory legal actions and preventing Corporations the power of 'Eminent Domain' in the Internet space".

We need lots of people to send letters to organizations, grassroots movements, and media making them aware of this issue. If we can get more organizations to pick up the fight the better chance we have of getting this bill revised or shot down entirely.

[EJS]

Today I've been sending emails to organizations (including the ACLU), citing the bill's name & number, noting "protecting First Amendment rights, serving the common good of the people and not Big Business, protecting citizens from predatory legal actions and preventing Corporations the power of 'Eminent Domain' in the Internet space".

We need lots of people to send letters to organizations, grassroots movements, and media making them aware of this issue. If we can get more organizations to pick up the fight the better chance we have of getting this bill revised or shot down entirely.

This is great. I think we need to be respectful and clearly explain the impact of the language in the bill. I think we can all agree that Phishing needs to be stopped. However, the language in the bill will harm all domain owners.

The major sponsors of ICA are:

Oversee.net
sedo
SevenMile.com
T.R.A.F.F.I.C.

the ICA will do what is best for them, or whover else pays them the most. That may or may not be what is best for you.

You need to look at your busniess plan and decide where to put your money. If you think sending it to DC lobbyists will help you then have at it.

Regarding the major sponsors... The ICA needs funds to operate. The biggest people in the industry have the most money to give. If everyone were to contribute the most they could, the ICA wouldn't have to rely so heavily upon a few of the biggest industry leaders. If I could give more, I would. I am looking to protect our freedom to own domain names. I think everyone should do what they can to support this.

[gorilla_bob]

I'm going to get my pocket book out and vote for the ICA. This is really game theory here. The ICA most likely gets most of its sponsorship from the companies named above. The reason? It's plain obvious. Those companies have alot to lose if this bill goes through. You know what though? Domainers in general are in the same boat.

To borrow from Sun Tzu's the Art of War, "Your enemies' enemies are your friends." ... Also, I look at it this way, by supporting the ICA, we aren't supporting oversee.net, sedo.com, etc... in fact its the reverse. They are supporting us in our case against this bill.

Now is the time where we must join forces for the greater good... or get picked off one by one. It's your choice.

Bob

[NameCharger]

You need to look at your busniess plan and decide where to put your money. If you think sending it to DC lobbyists will help you then have at it.

In addition to domaining, I have a real estate practice and contribute annually to the Realtor Action Fund and the funds collected to support our lobbyists continually have a positive impact on legislation that favors our industry.

Smell the coffee?

[hiOsilver]

Today I've been sending emails to organizations (including the ACLU), citing the bill's name & number, noting "protecting First Amendment rights, serving the common good of the people and not Big Business, protecting citizens from predatory legal actions and preventing Corporations the power of 'Eminent Domain' in the Internet space".

We need lots of people to send letters to organizations, grassroots movements, and media making them aware of this issue. If we can get more organizations to pick up the fight the better chance we have of getting this bill revised or shot down entirely.

If they even look at the bill and understand it, the ACLU is not likely to care about this bill. I hope that I am wrong, but please try and see what you can do. However, the ACLU has lots of things to be concerned about, and it is just not likely that they will get it.

The ICA was created because companies like Oversee.net and sedo, and individuals like Frank Schilling (SevenMile.com) and Rick Schwartz (TRAFFIC) do get it. That is, they understand how US politics work. US Trademark laws already heavily favor Big Business, because those interests have spent millions of dollars on lobbyists to get legislation passed that favors TM owners. The ICA was created so that you and I could be represented by our own organization that will fight back.

I was born in Washington, DC and I grew up in the DC suburbs. I also understand how the game is played in that town, even though I now live in California. Every industry has at least one organization representing it in Washington. Most of those organizations are headquartered in or near DC.

You belong to DNForum because it is a forum by and about domainers. You also need to belong to ICA if you have any significant domain portfolio. If you own 3 low-value .info domains, then joining ICA is probably not very important. If you own a domain portfolio worth more than $10,000 and you do not belong to the ICA, then you are lazy, cheap, or you just do not get it.

[Dave Zan]

ICA is supposed to be org that protect domain holders.

Depends who exactly those domain holders are.

I guess Keyword's point is whose interests ICA is going to prioritize:

The major sponsors of ICA are:

Oversee.net
sedo
SevenMile.com
T.R.A.F.F.I.C.

the ICA will do what is best for them, or whover else pays them the most. That may or may not be what is best for you.

Realistically speaking, though, someone with lobbying experience might have a
better chance than others of getting their point across. It so happens ICA has
that...I think.

Of course, better hope and make sure everyone's on the same page...

[lordbyroniv]

What the big deal - if a domain has value and you as the owner are actually using it, file a trademark with the USPTO and get a trademark

Otherwise, the presumption is in part that you may be infringinging

[EJS]

What the big deal - if a domain has value and you as the owner are actually using it, file a trademark with the USPTO and get a trademark

Otherwise, the presumption is in part that you may be infringinging

I think that is much easier said than done. Not to put you on the spot since we don't know each other, but how many domain names do you own that are developed and have a trademark? What's to say you do all of this and a bigger company says your generic domain name happens to infringe on their mark, and a court grants them an injunction. Of all of your trademarked names, how many would/could you afford to spend $25,000 (minimum) on hiring an attorney to appeal and defend your position? I certainly couldn't afford this.

[slumbum]

I am trying to understand how this might impact me...and I can't tell right now.
If someone is trying to phish for information from unwitting people, visiting a site, that's bad and they shouldn't do it, but this could be a free pass for companies to take domains from individuals. It's a big gray area that could make lots of people criminals...at the discretion of others.

http://www.internetcommerce.org/Snow...me_Registrants

[EJS]

this could be a free pass for companies to take domains from individuals. It's a big gray area that could make lots of people criminals...at the discretion of others.

http://www.internetcommerce.org/Snow...me_Registrants

BINGO.

[Adonis]

So if i get this straight... if i see a domain, and there is no US trademark registered on it, then i can legally protest against its "unlawful registration" and at the end of the line become the legal owner of said domain for a fraction of it's worth?

This is like the world upside down here. If the main registry wants this then they should have implemented this at the very start 15 or so years ago when hardly anyone had a domain name so that the rules were clear. Changing the rules now that all good names are gone and after it has become a multibillion dollar business is just crazy.

However having said that, I own a trademark (just not the US one), and i did inquire with a US based law firm a few years ago regarding a domain registered by a US citizen. They basically told me that if I registered the trademark, and paid up the legal fees, that i would soon have been the legal owner of the domain. No problem they said. I didn't go through with it as i only did it to find out if it was possible, but this example just explains that this stuff is for real.

[HomerJ]

This is fairly reminiscent of the bullshit that they tried to pull on u.s. poker players a couple years back. some legislators, dare i say our 'representitives', had to sneak their proposed online gambling legislation somewhere on like page 346, article 174, clause viii, ...etc., of this bill that had nothing whatsoever to do with gambling in the first place, only because they knew it wouldn't pass on its own.

this sounds similar in that this bill appears on the surface to be about targeting 'phishing' and other criminalities, when the reality is that is really just a trojan horse for all of the fine print. I say, Bullshit, and so called legislators like that need to be brought to justice.

oh, and StoweBill.com is available. perhaps a good way to spite the system is to make this a central place for FAQ on this bill, link straight to ICA, link to a petition, etc. or whatever else we can think of to fight this


edit: and did anyone happen to catch this from the article?

if (the bill's) aim is to halt the advertising monetization of brand names and typographical variations thereof when consumers engage in direct Internet navigation or in web searches it utterly fails in that endeavor, as this activity is also engaged in systematically by search engines, web browsers, and ISPs. In fact, Verizon, a CADNA member, now serves up unrelated ads to its broadband ISP subscribers when they type in typo variations of trademarked names that correspond to unregistered websites.

[lordbyroniv]

I think that is much easier said than done. Not to put you on the spot since we don't know each other, but how many domain names do you own that are developed and have a trademark? What's to say you do all of this and a bigger company says your generic domain name happens to infringe on their mark, and a court grants them an injunction. Of all of your trademarked names, how many would/could you afford to spend $25,000 (minimum) on hiring an attorney to appeal and defend your position? I certainly couldn't afford this.

I develop my domains and file trademark registrations for them. Perhaps, just as importantly, i really utilize them openly and notoriously - and profitably, no cybersquatting, no appearance of impropriety of bad faith. I really use them and market real businesses on them !!!!!

If you have valuable assets, they are worth protecting in every way you possibly can - and unfortunately that includes filing trademark registrations

I don't necessarily like, or even agree with the rules

But it is foolish not to understand them and utilize to your favor , if at all possible

[Focus]

Nobody should have to trademark a domain they rightfully own and no business has any business bothering them about it..in fact, even if you are squatting on a tm domain you don't deserve anything more than losing it and maybe the hassle's of a wipo...they have a very effective system in place that works already and if companies have ever asked me for the rare tm domain I just hand it right over...the phishing on the Internet is a whole other story and it seems like this bill is confusing the two and grouping them together, much like they group MJ in with hard dangerous drugs on smear campaigns to educate uneducated people with polluted information...this bill is a "f*ck you very much" move that is backed by big business to favor their rights & interests only, clear and simple and it must be stopped.

[lordbyroniv]

Nobody should have to trademark a domain they rightfully own and no business has any business bothering them about it..in fact, even if you are squatting on a tm domain you don't deserve anything more than losing it and maybe the hassle's of a wipo...they have a very effective system in place that works already and if companies have ever asked me for the rare tm domain I just hand it right over...the phishing on the Internet is a whole other story and it seems like this bill is confusing the two and grouping them together, much like they group MJ in with hard dangerous drugs on smear campaigns to educate uneducated people with polluted information...this bill is a "f*ck you very much" move that is backed by big business to favor their rights & interests only, clear and simple and it must be stopped.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, its only going to get worse

The golden age of domaining is coming to an end

Now, the big boys want to take y(our) marbles

and leave us (you) all crying in despair

[Dave Zan]

But it is foolish not to understand them and utilize to your favor , if at all possible

Amen.

[Corwin]

how much is it suppose to cost per domain names to create a trademark?

I checked at USPTO but it s very confusing.