Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1703
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, May 21 2003           Volume 01 : Number 1703

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 16:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

Hi,

As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
unregistered domains to money-making webpages (pay-per-click, powered
by Looksmart). For instance, I'm not sure that AT&T will be happy that:

http://wwwatt.biz/

is being typo-squatted upon by the registry.

The same happens for other TM domains, e.g.

http://wwwmicrosoft.biz/
http://wwwpepsi.biz/

etc.

Besides breaking technical standards, I'd be curious to know how the IP
constituency feels about this typo-squatting. It certainly provides a
great precedent that respondents can use at UDRP, as they point to the
behaviour of the registry itself.

I also wonder if AT&T will start putting commercials on unallocated
telephone numbers, instead of just the message that "the number you
have dialed is not in service"....

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 03:07:03 -0400
From: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

They are doing it in .us as well.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 00:57:01 -0700
From: "Jay Westerdal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

Looks like *.biz and *.us now resolve to looksmart pay per search service.
Was this in the registry business plan? The fact dead domains and
all non-registered domains now resolve to this page is horrible. A registry
should not do this. This causes errors left and right for DNS checking
scripts.

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> dafdsdfsdafdsfdsafasd.biz 
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 2, ADDITIONAL: 2
;; QUERY SECTION:
;;      dafdsdfsdafdsfdsafasd.biz, type = A, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
dafdsdfsdafdsfdsafasd.biz.  1M IN CNAME  ip90.chainlink.net.
ip90.chainlink.net.     6d3h28m15s IN A  209.249.107.90

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
chainlink.net.          6d23h36m2s IN NS  ns3.chainlink.com.
chainlink.net.          6d23h36m2s IN NS  ns1.chainlink.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.chainlink.com.      1d3h28m15s IN A  209.249.107.10
ns3.chainlink.com.      1d3h28m15s IN A  209.249.107.20

;; Total query time: 183 msec
;; FROM: homer to SERVER: default -- 216.145.1.2
;; WHEN: Tue May 20 00:44:35 2003
;; MSG SIZE  sent: 43  rcvd: 172

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:07 AM
To: George Kirikos; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on
AT&T's trademarks?

They are doing it in .us as well.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 10:53:41 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 04:49:58PM -0700,
 George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 35 lines which said:

> As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> unregistered domains to money-making webpages (pay-per-click, powered
> by Looksmart).

It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with
the answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and
'.net'. ICANN did nothing
<URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html> so other
registries step in.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:22:04 +0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - Weshall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams susp

L. Gallegos wrote:

>
>On 16 May 2003 at 7:00, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > >However, as I said, I see no reason for GA list censorship.  I opposed 
>it
> > >when Herald A. imposed it on the GA list.  On the other hand, I have no
> > >objection to people exercising their right not to listen either through
> > >the use of filters of through liberal use of the 'd' key.
> >
> > In a perfect world, that would be the perfect solution.
> > May I remind that one of the reasons for introducing formal rules was 
>the
> > fact that newcomers, flooded by emails off-topic or not in line with 
>civil
> > behaviour, often unsubscribe rather than setting filters.
> >
> > Regards
> > Roberto
>
>Roberto,
>
>That is a choice that everyone has to make.  I don't know of any list that 
>is so pure as to not
>have off-topic posts or personally objectionable posts.  Unsubscribing 
>because one does not
>chooose to use filters, which every mail client has available, is childish. 
>  It results only in
>silencing one's own voice rather than those who are subscribed and have 
>posting privileges.
>It's a rather self-defeating move, wouldn't you say?

Of course it would be, it that was the situation.
For who does not know/remember the history, when the monitoring was started 
there have been two lists, one monitored one unmonitored, both archived, and 
people had the freedom to choose either.
Questions about freedom of speech are therefore rather pretestuous.

Roberto

>
>Having freedom of speech can be uncomfortable for some people - those who 
>may be the
>targets of that speech, such as the defendants of unpopular policies.  If 
>we silence those who
>speak out, we kill those freedoms.
>
>The only instances where I would agree that there should be deletions would 
>be spam and I
>have not seen much of that on the ga list.
>
>Regards,
>
>Leah
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] WLS appeals recommendations

Hello,

As pointed out on Bret Faussett's blog, ICANN's Reconsideration
Committee came down with some recommendations today:

http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-6.htm

The only smart part of the documents was that committee members did not
sign their names to it. I'm sure many would be equally ashamed to be
associated with those documents

The lack of logic, and inability to understand law and economics will
surely be appealed once more, and come back to haunt ICANN as it gets
another pasting in court.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:09:09 -0400
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T 's trademarks?

> > As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> > unregistered domains to money-making webpages 
> (pay-per-click, powered
> > by Looksmart).
> 
> It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with
> the answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and
> '.net'. ICANN did nothing
> <URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html> so other
> registries step in.

Just to set the record straight: VeriSign did not start the trend.  There
are at least 11 TLDs (.cc, .cx, .io, .mp, .museum, .nu, .ph, .td, .tk, .tv,
and .ws) that have been using DNS wildcards for quite some time to offer
either domain registration services or to provide web navigation assistance.
.museum's service is even documented in their agreement with ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/museum/sponsorship-agmt-att13-16oct01.h
tm

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

On Tue, 20 May 2003, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> > As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> > unregistered domains to money-making webpages (pay-per-click, powered
> > by Looksmart).
 
> It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with
> the answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and '.net'.
> ICANN did nothing
> <URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html> so other
> registries step in.

The issue goes even deeper.

Clearly any TLD that uses these wildcard responses is not merely
"typosquatting" on all trademarks, but is also actually *using* all
trademarks not otherwise registered.  For example, I have some trademarks
that are not registered in .biz, yet Newlevel (and everyone else who
practices the technique) is responding both in DNS and via web servers as
if they were authorized to use my marks.  So we're not talking merely UDRP
level kind of things, we are talking about direct infringement and
misrepresentation.

Secondly, becuase of the timeout values associated with the records,
anyone who does register one of these previously unused names may find
that they have to wait a week (or longer) for the pollution intentionally
created to fade away.  This means that someone who wants to launch a
fast-breaking net-based campaign can not do so.  (Imagine, for example,
had this been in effect on Sept 11 - how would NewLevel explain why in
their TLD's it takes more than a week for an emergency domain name to
become effective, while it is immediate in other TLDs.)

Third, many user tools have mechanisms that let the user decide what to do
when the user picks a name that is invalid.  These DNS wildcard
mechanisms, because they make all names "valid" (in a twisted kinda way)  
do not let the user's choice prevail.

Many in the trademark and business communities have descried the damage to
internet "stability" when names do not resolve as expected.  While I
disagree that this is a technical matter (and thus believe that this is a
matter beyond ICANN's role), I do believe that consistent and predictable
name services are important.  I believe that this wildcarding severely 
damages the ability of consumers to trust DNS.

		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 23:24:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T 's trademarks?

It is often quite  useful to dig reasons of such apparent difference 
between gTLDs and ccTLDs: why wildcards allowed here and not there?
Besides .museum, which is totaly outside and another story.

I am being reminded that IAB have never permitted wildcards in gTLD 
zone files and that they have generally been discouraged in ccTLD 
zones except in the specific context of connecting new countries, 
where initially, in old pioneer times, it was necessary to route
all email into a single server or gateway to the country.

In other words, today the wildcards should not be used in ccTLD neither,
as it creates bad policy problems.

Now, what we are facing with Registries (and why not Registrars 
in next step?) redirecting ALL unregistered domains to their special
sites? 

When application is a web browser, the redirection goes to
money-making webpages. When application is an email, and when
a typo is made in destination address, who gets the correspondence?

Aren't such practices equivalent to interception of communication
traffic which is a crime in many countries?

As a possible escalation, one may imagine registries diverting
a query for a registered name to a different site/location
depending on address of origin ... or any other criteria ...

Is this the beginning of the end of Internet?

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

> From [email-masked] Tue May 20 21:12 MET 2003
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T
> 	's trademarks?
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:09:09 -0400
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> > > As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> > > unregistered domains to money-making webpages 
> > (pay-per-click, powered
> > > by Looksmart).
> > 
> > It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with
> > the answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and
> > '.net'. ICANN did nothing
> > <URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html> so other
> > registries step in.
> 
> Just to set the record straight: VeriSign did not start the trend.  There
> are at least 11 TLDs (.cc, .cx, .io, .mp, .museum, .nu, .ph, .td, .tk, .tv,
> and .ws) that have been using DNS wildcards for quite some time to offer
> either domain registration services or to provide web navigation assistance.
> .museum's service is even documented in their agreement with ICANN:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/museum/sponsorship-agmt-att13-16oct01.h
> tm
> 
> Scott Hollenbeck
> VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:01:08 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - Weshall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams susp

On 20 May 2003 at 11:22, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> >That is a choice that everyone has to make.  I don't know of any list that
> > is so pure as to not have off-topic posts or personally objectionable
> >posts.  Unsubscribing because one does not chooose to use filters, which
> >every mail client has available, is childish. 
> >  It results only in
> >silencing one's own voice rather than those who are subscribed and have
> >posting privileges. It's a rather self-defeating move, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Of course it would be, it that was the situation.
> For who does not know/remember the history, when the monitoring was started
> there have been two lists, one monitored one unmonitored, both archived,
> and people had the freedom to choose either. Questions about freedom of
> speech are therefore rather pretestuous.
> 
> Roberto
> 

Now, however, the ga-full list is closed.  Therefore silencing a poster in any form, 
does just that.  There is no alternative to the moderated list.

Leah

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:04:53 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Even Handed Application of The Rules (Yes or No? - Weshall see) (was Re: [ga] Posting rights of Jeff Williams susp

On 20 May 2003 at 11:22, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> >That is a choice that everyone has to make.  I don't know of any list that
> > is so pure as to not have off-topic posts or personally objectionable
> >posts.  Unsubscribing because one does not chooose to use filters, which
> >every mail client has available, is childish. 
> >  It results only in
> >silencing one's own voice rather than those who are subscribed and have
> >posting privileges. It's a rather self-defeating move, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Of course it would be, it that was the situation.
> For who does not know/remember the history, when the monitoring was started
> there have been two lists, one monitored one unmonitored, both archived,
> and people had the freedom to choose either. Questions about freedom of
> speech are therefore rather pretestuous.
> 
> Roberto
> 

Now, however, the ga-full list is closed.  Therefore silencing a poster in any form, 
does just that.  There is no alternative to the moderated list.

Leah

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 15:32:40 -0700
From: "Jay Westerdal" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

Sovereign nations and sponsored TLDs doing wildcard tricks is one thing. But
it is a dangerous precedent to allow a unsponsored gTLD to do this.

I can imagine the typo rate in .COM is huge and the effect on consumers
would be mass confusion if Verisign were to follow Neustar's actions. Small
TLD like .biz can really get away with this right now, which is bad because
this creates an extremely dangerous precedent for Verisign say, look we are
only following the example of the other unsponsored registries.  We are
setting up a slipper slope that is easy to follow.

Unsponsored gTLDs should not just launch new features that confuse consumers
and undermine how DNS has behaved for years. I am not even talking about the
legal ramification here, just consumers getting confused. Not to mention
that these ccTLD operators that you speak of resolve to a page that says,
"This domain available for sale". Neustar is not even doing that, they are
landing people on a very deceptive page that states, "The page you are
looking for may have been removed, changed name, or be temporarily
unavailable."

What Neustar is doing is cashing in on the confused traffic, I find it
immoral for a registry to land people on a pay per search engine where the
registry receives payment for every search the confused user does. They are
not even telling people the domain is available. I see a class action
lawsuit coming against this soon. Mark my words. I would advise all
unsponsored gTLDs not to behave or follow Neustar's example. I can only hope
Neustar comes to their senses and stops this deceptive practice on their
own.

Jay Westerdal
Name Intelligence, Inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Hollenbeck, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:09 PM
To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on
AT&T's trademarks?

> > As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> > unregistered domains to money-making webpages
> (pay-per-click, powered
> > by Looksmart).
>
> It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with
> the answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and
> '.net'. ICANN did nothing
> <URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html> so other
> registries step in.

Just to set the record straight: VeriSign did not start the trend.  There
are at least 11 TLDs (.cc, .cx, .io, .mp, .museum, .nu, .ph, .td, .tk, .tv,
and .ws) that have been using DNS wildcards for quite some time to offer
either domain registration services or to provide web navigation assistance.
.museum's service is even documented in their agreement with ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/museum/sponsorship-agmt-att13-16oct01.h
tm

Scott Hollenbeck
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:53:22 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

On Tuesday, May 20, 2003, at 05:32  PM, Jay Westerdal wrote:

> What Neustar is doing is cashing in on the confused traffic, I find it
> immoral for a registry to land people on a pay per search engine where 
> the
> registry receives payment for every search the confused user does.

And what happens when the registry finds it can make more money out of 
the searches than selling domains?

Watch for domains being deleted in error and somehow unable to be 
registered again (AKA 2 letter .org's).

A registry should be a REGISTRY and NOTHING MORE.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:00:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: you have missed the point (was RE: [ga] UDRP dead?...)

the question to ask is:

   is icann/iana doing the job of technical management of the TLDs, that
   have signed contracts with icann/iana, and are these kinds of tricks
   ok?

It seems like the at-large/general network user may take issue with how
icann/iana are preforming their primary function "technical administration
of the contracted gTLDs"

Its time we started grading icann on its ability to manage technical
things, thats its mandate with DoC.

- -rick

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:01:59 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS appeals recommendations

The Regulator is benevolent to those, with money, whom they regulate.
It is not a case of right and wrong, due process or good judgement.
It boils down to just following the money, and that's nothing new in
this venue.  Who among us is surprised with this result?

Thanks,

Tuesday, May 20, 2003, 1:55:01 PM, George Kirikos <[email-masked]> wrote:
GK> Hello,

GK> As pointed out on Bret Faussett's blog, ICANN's Reconsideration
GK> Committee came down with some recommendations today:

GK> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
GK> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-6.htm

GK> The only smart part of the documents was that committee members did not
GK> sign their names to it. I'm sure many would be equally ashamed to be
GK> associated with those documents

GK> The lack of logic, and inability to understand law and economics will
GK> surely be appealed once more, and come back to haunt ICANN as it gets
GK> another pasting in court.

GK> Sincerely,

GK> George Kirikos
GK> http://www.kirikos.com/
GK> --
GK> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
GK> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
GK> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
GK> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 19:13:07 -0400
From: "L. Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

It's bad enough when it is an HTTP redirect.  It's much worse when it is at DNS 
lookup (dig, host, whois), as noted by the IAB.  When it involves email, it's an 
enormous problem and can't be underestimated.  Email is problematic enough 
because of spoofing, but when your mail is redirected due to wildcards at registry 
level, it is totally unreliable.  

Leah

On 20 May 2003 at 15:32, Jay Westerdal wrote:

> Sovereign nations and sponsored TLDs doing wildcard tricks is one thing.
> But it is a dangerous precedent to allow a unsponsored gTLD to do this.
> 
> I can imagine the typo rate in .COM is huge and the effect on consumers
> would be mass confusion if Verisign were to follow Neustar's actions. Small
> TLD like .biz can really get away with this right now, which is bad because
> this creates an extremely dangerous precedent for Verisign say, look we are
> only following the example of the other unsponsored registries.  We are
> setting up a slipper slope that is easy to follow.
> 
> Unsponsored gTLDs should not just launch new features that confuse
> consumers and undermine how DNS has behaved for years. I am not even
> talking about the legal ramification here, just consumers getting confused.
> Not to mention that these ccTLD operators that you speak of resolve to a
> page that says, "This domain available for sale". Neustar is not even doing
> that, they are landing people on a very deceptive page that states, "The
> page you are looking for may have been removed, changed name, or be
> temporarily unavailable."
> 
> What Neustar is doing is cashing in on the confused traffic, I find it
> immoral for a registry to land people on a pay per search engine where the
> registry receives payment for every search the confused user does. They are
> not even telling people the domain is available. I see a class action
> lawsuit coming against this soon. Mark my words. I would advise all
> unsponsored gTLDs not to behave or follow Neustar's example. I can only
> hope Neustar comes to their senses and stops this deceptive practice on
> their own.
> 
> Jay Westerdal
> Name Intelligence, Inc.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Hollenbeck, Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:09 PM
> To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on
> AT&T's trademarks?
> 
> 
> > > As reported on ICANNWatch, the dot-biz registry is redirecting ALL
> > > unregistered domains to money-making webpages
> > (pay-per-click, powered
> > > by Looksmart).
> >
> > It is outrageous but do note that Verisign GRS started the trend with the
> > answer to non-existing Unicode domain names in '.com' and '.net'. ICANN
> > did nothing <URL:http://www.iab.org/Documents/icann-vgrs-response.html>
> > so other registries step in.
> 
> Just to set the record straight: VeriSign did not start the trend.  There
> are at least 11 TLDs (.cc, .cx, .io, .mp, .museum, .nu, .ph, .td, .tk, .tv,
> and .ws) that have been using DNS wildcards for quite some time to offer
> either domain registration services or to provide web navigation
> assistance. .museum's service is even documented in their agreement with
> ICANN:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/museum/sponsorship-agmt-att13-16oct01.
> h tm
> 
> Scott Hollenbeck
> VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:23:47 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] UDRP dead? Is the dot-biz registry typosquatting on AT&T's trademarks?

Surely, the only reason they're doing this is because they need another 
revenue stream?

Does this mean they're financially unstable?

Does this make their operation of a gTLD a security risk?

Registries should have strict rules regarding what they can and cannot 
do.

Remember when Reagan's team relaxed the regulations on who could own 
S&L's and who they could loan money to?

Have we got another disaster like that coming down the turnpike?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 17:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] WLS appeals recommendations

On Tue, 20 May 2003, George Kirikos wrote:

> As pointed out on Bret Faussett's blog, ICANN's Reconsideration
> Committee came down with some recommendations today:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-5.htm
> http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc02-6.htm

Rare as it may seem, I agree with the committee's recomendation on the 
second report (on the Verisign claim.)

I can't say yet how I feel about the report on the Dotster request.

(By-the-way, I have domains registered with both NSI/Verisign and Dotster 
- - Does anyone consider that to be a conflict?)
 
		--karl--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1703
*************************