Spreading The Word

[Gerry]

Domains should not be under US jurisdiction in the first place.

If they are not, then Congress can do its bloody worst as far as I am concerned.

Don't think any of this really affects me though being non-resident.

I have to agree with this assessment.

International oversight, not ICANN, needs to take control.

But in the meantime, playing the cards dealt before us...I am not so sure even a foreign based person or group would be safe from having the domain seized. It appears to me that if Congress and the US does have control, then any domain can be seized without any due process.

[mediawizard]

But in the meantime, playing the cards dealt before us...I am not so sure even a foreign based person or group would be safe from having the domain seized. It appears to me that if Congress and the US does have control, then any domain can be seized without any due process.

That is so true. Though there will be 'due process' - your legal team v/s ours...

International oversight, not ICANN, needs to take control.

I'd side with ICANN / WIPO / UDRP over having to slug it out in US court with expensive lawyers.

If you want to keep your domains you should have a huge budget and lots of lawyers.

[EJS]

Elliot,

Has other domain forums, blogs, journals, etc picked up on this story?

Many have, but not nearly as many as when Net Sol was accused of front running. There was PR and all the blogs were blogging. I don't understand why Jay a couple of the big bloggers haven't mentioned anything.

[katherine]

International oversight, not ICANN, needs to take control.

Depends what kind of international oversight.
Right now Icann is already moving to restructure itself as an international private organization so they get out of the reach of US law and become even less accountable.
I'm not eager to see the UN taking over either. Even more political interference, with the Chinese meddling in (big sponsors of Internet censorship). Rough times ahead

[PRED]

Depends what kind of international oversight.
Right now Icann is already moving to restructure itself as an international private organization so they get out of the reach of US law and become even less accountable.
I'm not eager to see the UN taking over either. Even more political interference, with the Chinese meddling in (big sponsors of Internet censorship). Rough times ahead

agreed, don't forget Russia , they got some 'ideas' too

[Area52]

Further evidence that we should focus as much or even more attention on the people that we elect to represent us in congress than we do for the presidency. I bet that most people don't even know who their representatives or senators are. As for your rights, use them or your going to lose them.

[HarveyJ]

Elliot,

Has other domain forums, blogs, journals, etc picked up on this story?

Sorta... This exact same thread is going on over at DomainState, although going in a different direction (read: I'm arguing with one of the admins that while it's mostly bad for us, it does help protect mum&dad businesses that become easy prey for unethical domainers like DomainSpa because they're not really tech savvy, but need a website to help drum up business)

Sasha: Technically, America doesn't control the net, you're right... but the major systems that keep it running are all located in the USA. Flick of a switch, so to speak, would see the internet become America's own internal network, and leave the rest of us out cold (except North Korea, that has their own internal network and no internet).
But yeah, the way that corporations are managing to make the USA a totalitarian society is actually REALLY scary as it has major international ramifications.
American laws affect Australians. We had a citizen extradited (happily handed over by our previous sycophantic Government) over software piracy!!! (WTF?) And Adobe have offices here, so it's not like they needed to take him away.

[Donald Aquilano]

It's yet more sneaky slight-of-hand by the Republics.

She's a left leaning Republican(RINO) just look at her voting record. This is what I expect from Republicans that act like Democrats.

[draggar]

The bill is co-sponsored by Bill Nelson, a democrat (D-FL).

He's gotten one letter from me today and so did Senator Snowe from Maine. I plan to mail both tomorrow or the next day but I already sent them through their website email.

[Focus]

Maybe we can "monetarily influence" someone lol

[Chappy]

When will this bill be passed (or not)?

Glad I kept my day job....

[intellect]

In my opinion these portions of the Bill leaves too much vagueness in terms of violation of the act, empowers (registered) trademark owners while eroding the rights of domain name owners who should have inherit rights. Is un-American in that it gives injunctive relief and power without explanation. What happened to due process? Bill also declares all whois privacy as used for malicious reasons; what about people wanting privacy against litigious companies. Ive probably missed other portions, but bill is terrible.



S.2(9) Phishing operators utilize deceptive domain names for their schemes. They
routinely register domain names that mimic the addresses of well-known online
merchants, and then set up websites that can fool consumers into releasing
personal and financial information.

S.2(12) Deceptive domain names, and the abuses for which they are used,
threaten the integrity of domain name system. Businesses, small and large, rely
upon the integrity of the domain name registration to ensure that their brands
aren't misrepresented. The World Intellectual Property Organization reported in
April 2007, that the number of Internet domain name cybersquatting disputes
increased 25 percent in 2006.

S.2(15) WHOIS databases provide a crucial tool for businesses, the Federal Trade
Commission, and other law enforcement agencies to track down brand
infringement, online fraud, identity theft, and other online illegal activity, but
are often hindered in their pursuit because the person responsible is hiding
behind the anonymity of false registration information.

S.3(3) CYBERSQUATTED DOMAIN NAMES- It is unlawful for any person to use a
domain name that is in violation of section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15
U.S.C. 1125), to solicit identifying information from a protected computer in
violation of paragraph (1).

(b) Deceptive or Misleading Domain Names-
(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to use a domain name in an
electronic mail message, an instant message, or in connection with the display
of a webpage or an advertisement on a webpage, if--

(A) such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of,
or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government
office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity;

(B) such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the
basis of objective circumstances, that the domain name would be likely to
mislead a computer user, acting reasonably under the circumstances,
about a material fact regarding the contents of such electronic mail
message, instant message, webpage, or advertisement (consistent with the
criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).

(2) CIRCUMSTANCES FACTORING INTO KNOWLEDGE DETERMINATION- In
determining whether a person meets the requirement established under
paragraph (1)(B), the Commission shall consider circumstances such as the--

(A) trademark or other intellectual property rights of a person, if any, in
the domain name;

(B) extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the
person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;

(C) person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the
bona fide offering of any goods or services;


(D) person's bona fide noncommercial use of the domain name or fair use
of a mark in a website accessible under the domain name;

(E) person's intent to divert consumers from the brand name or trademark
owner's online location to a website accessible under the domain name that
could harm the goodwill represented by the brand name or the trademark,
either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the
trademark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website;

(F) person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to
the brand name or trademark owner or any third party for financial gain
without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the
bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct
indicating a pattern of such conduct;

(G) person's--
(i) provision of material and misleading false contact information when
applying for the registration of the domain name;

(ii) intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information; or

(iii) prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct; and

(H) person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the
person knows are identical or confusingly similar to brand names or
trademarks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such
domain names, or damaging to the brand name or dilutive of famous
trademarks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such
domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties.

s.4 (c) Actions by Owners of Trademark- Any person who is the owner of a trademark
that is used or otherwise involved in the commission of a violation of this Act may
bring a civil action in any district court of the United States with jurisdiction over the
person who committed such violation to--

(1) enjoin further violation of this Act by that person;

(2) enforce compliance with this Act;

(3) recover damages for any monetary loss incurred by such owner as result of
such violation; or

(4) obtain such further and other relief as the court may deem appropriate,
including punitive damages if the court determines that the defendant
committed the violation willfully and knowingly.

(e) Availability of Cease and Desist Orders and Injunctive Relief Without Showing of
Knowledge- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, in any proceeding or
action pursuant to subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this section to enforce
compliance, through an order to cease and desist or an injunction, with the
provisions of section 3, neither the Commission nor the Federal Communications
Commission shall be required to allege or prove the state of mind required by such
section or subparagraph.

What about a Bill against reverse domain name hijacking? May be too American? Lets stop fascist favored bills that empower big business and government over the rights of its citizens.

[Rubber Duck]

Do you own any .com / .net?

Then this affects you as verisign is US based.

Sign the petition - link in my sig!!

Well they are all dot coms and dot nets, but none of them are in Latin Characters, so most American's simply don't have a clue where I am coming from.

[HarveyJ]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I realise that this bill is simply not going to stop the people who it's aimed at stopping, because they all live in the bloody Cayman Islands!
Or at the very least, their businesses are there.


You're also going to end up with what I call the "McDonald's Problem:
I forget the exact case, but the Big yellow M McDonald's with the creepy clown succesfully sued a whole heap of other businesses that also were called 'McDonald's something or other', as they were family business, and McDonald is basically the Scottish equivalent of the surname Smith.
Now, they all legitimately had the right to call themselves McDonald's, and the majority of them weren't even in food or hospitality... But it seemed that didn't matter...


I'm just wondering, has anyone seriously delved into who's funding these senators?
And where the hell is Michael Moore when you really need him?

[austinandrew]

While I'm all for supporting the ICA in the fight against this... I have a feeling its a losing battle.

Who's not going to support an anti-phishing bill?

The bill doesn't have to be stopped, it just has to be changed. It can be watered down to its specific purpose rather than its current broad state. That's what can do -- try to get the language changed.

Depends what kind of international oversight.
Right now Icann is already moving to restructure itself as an international private organization so they get out of the reach of US law and become even less accountable.
I'm not eager to see the UN taking over either. Even more political interference, with the Chinese meddling in (big sponsors of Internet censorship). Rough times ahead

Yes, for all of its difficulties, I worry about having ICANN be out of the U.S.'s control and in the hands of people that already DO censor content.

[Gerry]

Free Banners to post on web sites:

http://xps.mobi/images//snowe%20min.jpg
160 width perfect for side bars, mobi sites, menus

http://xps.mobi/images//snowe.jpg
Half banner sized

[intellect]

Petitions are great but i agree with ICA that direct contact with your local senators is better. Advice on how to do this from the ICA: http://www.internetcommerce.org/OPPOSE_THE_SNOWE_BILL

I wrote to my senators in Indiana and asked my parents in Philadelphia and cousins in Michigan and Orlando to write in their thoughts to their senators after i explained to them the situation. Most senator's site have a web form you can fill out and is fairly easy, or provides an email address. Take 15 minutes to do this, several thousands direct emails from you and your tech savvy family members or friends will make more impact than a 3rd party petition.

[sashas]

This bill is just plain stupid. Either they make .com and .net exclusively for America based businesses/individuals and forego the .us TLD, or stop dictating terms for the rest of the planet.