DOCSLIB.ORG

IP Alert Resolving Domain Name Disputes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IP Alert Resolving Domain Name Disputes January 2008 IP Alert Resolving Domain Name Disputes: A Primer I. Introduction A few years ago, if a child searching for information about Hannah Montana accidentally visited the website Disneychanel.com (as opposed to DisneyChannel.com), the child would be disappointed. If the child’s parent wanted to investigate family-friendly programming and went to parentstelevisioncouncil.com, the parent would not find the information sought (but rather would be directed to a website of a targeted program instead). If that person wanted information about a luxury sports car and went to porshe.com (as opposed to Porsche.com) or wanted to find a luxury handbag and went to LuisVuitton.com (as opposed to LouisVuitton.com), the person would not find the expected high quality sites. Instead these web travelers were being directed to sites where enterprising but not necessarily scrupulous entities awaited. The companies behind the valid websites faced lost revenues, and tarnishing of their trademarks and goodwill as consumers spent money on such “typo domains.” However today, if those domains are accessed, individuals will either be automatically linked to the appropriate website, or the sites will display a “not found” notice with sufficient information to direct individuals to the appropriate website. The companies behind the valid websites no longer need to be as concerned with imposters, because they have learned to assertively protect their brands online. But no business with an image or a brand to protect can afford to let down its guard for very long. Danger lurks in every corner of the Internet. With the explosion of Internet use and the burgeoning presence of commercial entities online in the past 15 years, it is not surprising that innumerable disputes have erupted over domain names. While the technologies supporting the Internet are sophisticated and complex, procedures for registering domain names are remarkably simple and inexpensive. It is largely a first-come, first-served system. A sophisticated, well-funded enterprise is not needed to register a domain name. A high school student without a job could be as dangerous as a multibillion-dollar competitor. Anyone can register a “dot-com” domain name not currently in use for as little as $6.95 a year. Many companies eager to enhance their image and facilitate operations by launching a website have discovered their most obvious choice of domain name taken by another – often by a cybersquatter, an enterprising “investor” who preemptively amasses names in hopes of profiting down the road, or by a typosquatter, an entity seeking to capitalize on the innocent mistakes of Internet users who fail to accurately type in the domain name for the site they wish to visit. Other companies have discovered their bottom lines and goodwill jeopardized by sites with similar sounding names – sites to which their customers are often misdirected. It was not always clear where companies victimized by such conduct could turn. But new laws, universal dispute resolution policies and forums have brought a semblance of 0.AlertJan08 order to the growing battlefield over domain names. It is essential to grasp these developments, if one is to avoid the perils of cyberpiracy, or defend against a cybersquatting claim. II. Birth of the Internet and Domain Names The system of registering domain names for websites in use today was designed by University of Wisconsin researchers in the 1980s. By the 1990s, Internet use exploded in the commercial sector. A domain name is simply an address. It is an alias for the long IP or Internet protocol string of numbers – where web pages are located and e-mail is directed. However, unlike the name of your street or town, a domain name can be chosen by the addressee. In Internet lexicon, the letters after the “dot,” such as “.com,” “.edu,” and “.gov,” are termed “top- level” domain names, while the name directly to the left of the dot is called a “second-level” domain name. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the organization responsible for the global coordination of the domain name system. Until December 1999, Network Solutions, Inc. was the sole registrar overseeing the registration of second-level domain names. By 2000, ICANN had accredited several more registrars, but they all followed Network Solutions’ general first-come, first- served, no-questions-asked policy for selecting domain names. It was not long before the inevitable happened. Companies eager to build a presence on the web discovered that the most logical domain name for them to use – their company or product name – was owned by someone else. Where the company and the website owner were at cross-purposes with conflicting values, litigation often ensued. Litigation also arose when the entity holding the domain name appeared to be merely “parking” it to collect revenues or otherwise exploit the name. Example: When Hasbro Toys tried to register the domain name Candyland.com, it was too late. The name was registered to an adult entertainment provider. Hasbro ultimately sued and won rights to the name. III. Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) In order to address the growing number of conflicts between owners of domain names and those claiming a legitimate interest in the domain name, a procedure was born to address such disputes, regardless of the geographic location of the parties. Administered by ICANN, UDRP establishes how disputes over domain name registrations are resolved in the global top-level domains (.biz, .com, .info, .name, .net, .org and .aero, .coop, and .museum.). When Internet users register a name in one of these domains, they are required to sign a Registration Agreement in which they agree to abide by the UDRP terms. Under UDRP, owners of trademarks, whether registered or not, may file complaints with an accredited resolution service provider. Registration with WHOIS, a database of registered domain names, is mandatory, and the entry of false information can be construed by the courts or the ADR neutral as evidence of bad faith. 2 0.AlertJan08 a. Elements of UDRP Claim In order to have the offending name canceled, suspended or transferred, the claimant must establish: 1. That he has a legally recognized trademark in a name that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name; 2. That the current registrant of the domain name has no legitimate rights in the name; 3. Some evidence of bad faith or abuse. The UDRP does not apply to personal names, unless such names are protected by trademark law. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency, has become internationally recognized as the leading ADR forum for domain name disputes. Resolving a domain name dispute through WIPO is much faster than litigation in the courts. From filing the claim to decision normally takes about two months with many of the procedures conducted online. The cost is considerably lower as well. For resolution of a dispute involving up to five domain names, with a single panelist, the current cost is $1,500; for three panelists, $4,000. For six to ten domain names, the cost increases to $2,000 for a case involving a sole panelist to $5,000 for a case involving three panelists. Unlike in litigation, there are no damages awarded, and no injunctive relief is available. Rather, if the complainant prevails, the domain name will be canceled, or transferred to the complainant. If the claim is denied, the respondent may keep the domain name. Under UDRP, a WIPO decision may be appealed to the courts, although such appeals are uncommon. While the domain name may be kept by the original owner, this does not permit the owner to use the domain as he or she desires. Trademark law still prevents the owner from using the domain in a manner that conflicts with the rights of the trademark holder. For example, while the domain name owner of Sweeps.com was able to keep the domain (and use it in connection with sweepstakes and other games) (See WIPO Decision Case No. D2001-0031), the owner would probably not be able to change the use of his domain to sell vacuum cleaners, which would interfere with the complainant’s trademark rights in the mark “Sweeps” for retail services selling vacuum cleaners. b. Other Arbitration Forums Other currently operational ICANN accredited dispute resolution forums are the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), with offices in Beijing, Hong Kong and Seoul, and the National Arbitration Forum. The National Arbitration Forum is a private arbitration service that conducts many of the domain name disputes involving U.S.-based complainants. It has helped resolve thousands of domain name disputes since approved by ICANN in 1999 – disputes involving such well-known parties as Google, Dell and Hillary Clinton. 3 0.AlertJan08 c. Country Code Top-Level Domains A country code top-level domain (ccTLD) is a two letter, Internet top-level domain generally used or reserved for a country or a dependent territory. These domains do not generally fall within the scope of WIPO’s function, but rather are within the realm of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is currently contracted to ICANN. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD, and administration and control is then delegated to that entity, which is responsible for the policies and operation of the domain. Individual ccTLDs have varying requirements and fees for registering subdomains (e.g., some may require a local presence - the Canadian (ca) and German (de) domains – while others may have open registration - the Tuvalu (tv) domain, which has been used often by the entertainment industry for television-related domains). While WIPO controls the UDRP procedure for many top-level domains, each of the ccTLDs have their own independent authorities dealing with such disputes (e.g., Czech Arbitration Court, Centro risoluzione dispute domini and MFSD Srl.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I Wish to Thank the United States Department of Commerce's
    Comments from Danny Younger Introduction: I wish to thank the United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration for this opportunity to comment on the continuation of the transition of the technical coordination and management of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system to the private sector. As a member of the public that has had the honor of serving as an elected Chair of the General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, I sincerely appreciate your posting of a Notice of Inquiry and wish to share with you my thoughts on the transition process as an individual that has tracked ICANN-related matters on a regular basis for the last six years. It has been said that “ICANN may not be the world’s most unpopular organization, but if it had consciously set out to make itself loathed it could hardly have been more successful.”1 I share that assessment. ICANN, the organization selected to embody the principles set forth in the White Paper2 is almost universally reviled. From my vantage point as a long-time ICANN participant, I have come to conclude that this passionate loathing has a single root cause: we detest ICANN because it has not remained true to the White Paper’s noble vision – rather than striving to become an organization committed to private, bottom-up coordination operating for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, ICANN has chosen instead to focus its attention exclusively upon that select stakeholder community that feeds its coffers – it has become primarily a registry-registrar Guild Manager.
    [Show full text]
  • Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting
    GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 OUTCOMES REPORT OF THE GNSO AD HOC GROUP ON DOMAIN NAME TASTING 4 October 2007 Group Chair: Mike Rodenbaugh ICANN Staff: Olof Nordling, Patrick Jones STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the final version of the Outcomes Report from the GNSO ad hoc group on Domain Name Tasting, submitted to the GNSO Council on 4 October, 2007. GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 1 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE 5 3 BACKGROUND 7 4 OUTCOMES 10 5 NEXT STEPS 32 ANNEX 1 - SUBSCRIBERS TO THE DT LIST 33 ANNEX 2 - RFI RESPONSES 34 ANNEX 3 - EXPERIENCES FROM CCTLDS 97 ANNEX 4 - COMMENTS FROM UDRP PROVIDERS 104 ANNEX 5 – IPC CONSTITUENCY SUPPLEMENTAL RFI116 ANNEX 6 – REQUEST TO VERISIGN 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting v1.6 Authors: Mike Rodenbaugh, [email protected] , Olof Nordling, [email protected] , Patrick Jones, [email protected], Page 2 of 144 GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/02/04 4 October, 2007 1 Executive summary 1.1 Background Following a request from the At-Large Advisory Committee in spring 2007, the GNSO Council called for an Issues Report on Domain Tasting from ICANN Staff in May 2007. This Issues Report, available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain- tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf was discussed at the ICANN San Juan meeting, where the GNSO Council on 27 June 2007 (minutes at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-27jun07.shtml) resolved to establish an ad hoc group for further fact-finding on the practice of domain tasting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No
    Please cite this paper as: OECD (2006-04-12), “The Secondary Market for Domain Names”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/231550251200 OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 111 The Secondary Market for Domain Names OECD Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL
    [Show full text]
  • GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting Date
    GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting Date: 4 April 2008 GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the Final Report on the pending Domain Tasting Policy Development Process, prepared by ICANN staff for submission to the GNSO Council following public comments on the Initial Report of 7 January 2008 and draft Final Report of 8 February 2008. SUMMARY This report is submitted to the GNSO Council following public comments to the Initial Report and draft Final Report, as a required step in this GNSO Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. Final Report on Domain Tasting Author:, Liz Gasster, [email protected] Page 1 of 83 GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting Date: 4 April 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE AND NEXT STEPS 9 3 BACKGROUND 10 4 DISCUSSION OF ISSUES 18 5 CONCLUSION 38 ANNEX 1 - CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 39 ANNEX 2 - UPDATED CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 72 Final Report on Domain Tasting Author:, Liz Gasster, [email protected] Page 2 of 83 GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting Date: 4 April 2008 1 Executive summary The practice of domain tasting (using the add grace period to register domain names in order to test their profitability) has escalated significantly in the last two years. ICANN community stakeholders are increasingly concerned about the negative effects of domain tasting and in the spring of 2007 the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) asked that the domain tasting issue be studied further by the GNSO Council. The ALAC request enumerated five areas of potential concern for Internet users: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Interests Constituency Constituency Statement on Domain Name Tasting December 5, 2007
    Intellectual Property Interests Constituency Constituency Statement on Domain Name Tasting December 5, 2007 Pursuant to GNSO Council Resolution 20071031-2, the Intellectual Property Interests Constituency (“IPC”) submits this Constituency Statement on Domain Tasting. The IPC arrived at the positions below in accordance with the requirements of the GNSO Policy Development Process as outlined in the ICANN bylaws. These positions incorporate by reference Section 4.3 of the Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting, October 4, 2007 (hereinafter “Outcomes Report”), and Annex 5 thereto. I. Constituency Position A. Domain Tasting Harms Intellectual Property Rights Holders 1. Domain tasting harms holders of intellectual property (“IP”) rights (“IPR”) when, as is often the case, the tasted domain names (“tasted names”) are anticipated typographical errors of trademarks. A recent report by McAfee, Inc. characterizes domain tasting as one of the most significant factors in the recent growth in typosquatting. What’s In a Name: The State of Typosquatting 2007, available at http://us.mcafee.com/root/identitytheft.asp?id=safe_typo&cid=38296#WhatIsDriving. Domain tasting that is also typosquatting causes consumer confusion, erodes brands, and harms the goodwill represented by those brands. See Outcomes Report, page 14 and Annex 2. 2. Domain tasting prevents IPR holders from registering and using for legitimate purposes the tasted domain names ("tasted names"). Outcomes Report, pages 18-19. 3. Large IPR holders and those that own famous or well-known brands are more likely to have their brands/marks be the subject of tasted names. Consequently, they are more likely to incur the greatest costs in preventing and taking action against domain tasting involving typosquatting.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brave New World of Policing Trademarks by Patrick M
    The Brave New World of Policing Trademarks By Patrick M. Fahey and Susan S. Murphy t’s a brave new world for trademark when the entity tasked with coordination ber of registrars and individuals register owners. By some accounts, “virtu- of the Internet domain name system, the millions of domain names on a daily basis Ially every typographical error and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names that often include brands and typographi- misspelling of a word is monetized by and Numbers (ICANN), implemented the cal errors of brands en masse and free of someone, whether a domain name regis- “Add Grace Period” (AGP), a five-day charge by exploiting the five-day AGP.”8 trar, a domain investor, [or] an ISP. .”1 grace period during which Whether viewed as legitimate or nefar- Trademark owners spend millions of dol- ious, the instances of domain tasting have lars in promoting their marks and taking all the new owner [of a domain name] increased exponentially over the course of reasonable steps to protect that investment. can make full use of the chosen the past three years.9 Several factors are On any given day, however, hundreds or domain name, and no one else can responsible for this. First, the ease with even thousands of permutations of those use that domain name as the address which available domain names can be marks are popping up in domain names on for a website. However, during the identified and registered using automated the Internet, leading customers to websites AGP, the new owner can drop the processes, sometimes referred to as “drop- populated with links to the legitimate mark domain name for any reason, with- catching,” allows for the bulk registration holder’s competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 12-Apr-2006 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2005)9/FINAL Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Services Policies THE SECONDARY MARKET FOR DOMAIN NAMES English - Or. English JT03207431 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on Telecommunications and Information Services Policies (TISP) in December 2005 and was declassified by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policies (ICCP) in March 2006. This report was prepared by Ms. Karine Perset, with the participation of Mr. Dimitri Ypsilanti, both of the OECD's Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. This report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. 2 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL © OECD/OCDE 2006 3 DSTI/ICCP(2005)9/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS ...............................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • DOMAIN NAME SPECULATION: ARE WE PLAYING WHAC-A-MOLE? Sara D
    DOMAIN NAME SPECULATION: ARE WE PLAYING WHAC-A-MOLE? Sara D. Sunderland Since the inception of the Internet, speculators have sought to monetize web pages, often by selling space to advertisers. Monetized domain parking has emerged as a multi-million-dollar business over the last several years,' evolving from simple cybersquatting to a sophisticated and mostly automated method of delivering pay-per-click advertising on thousands of domains. Similar to the game of Whac-A-Mole,2 whenever the state introduces new legal tools to curb domain speculation abuse, domain name speculators alter their business models to survive. Although federal trademark law has a part to play in the battle against domain name speculation, some academics are concerned about expanding the law for this purpose.3 Additionally, the legal tools currently used most frequently to battle domain name speculation, the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) 4 and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), have been in use for ten years, yet the problem persists.' This Note examines the evolution of the domain name speculation business model and the tools used to fight it, outlines the scope of the problem and the barriers to solutions, and concludes that due to the difficulties of policing domain name speculation using trademark law, a combination of policy changes, technological solutions, and social C 2010 Sara D. Sunderland. 1. David Kesmodel, Thanks to Web Ads, Some Find New Money in Domain Names, WALL ST. J. ONLINE, November 17, 2005, http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB113 200310765396752-FYV6dsilRSON1fsiVubLf_5nl8_20061116.html?mod=rss-free. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Domain Registration Abuses Scott E
    Understanding Domain Registration Abuses Scott E. Coull, Andrew M. White, Ting-Fang Yen, Fabian Monrose, Michael K. Reiter To cite this version: Scott E. Coull, Andrew M. White, Ting-Fang Yen, Fabian Monrose, Michael K. Reiter. Understand- ing Domain Registration Abuses. 25th IFIP TC 11 International Information Security Conference (SEC) / Held as Part of World Computer Congress (WCC), Sep 2010, Brisbane, Australia. pp.68-79, 10.1007/978-3-642-15257-3_7. hal-01054502 HAL Id: hal-01054502 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01054502 Submitted on 7 Aug 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Understanding Domain Registration Abuses Scott E. Coull1, Andrew M. White1, Ting-Fang Yen2, Fabian Monrose1, and Michael K. Reiter1 1 University of North Carolina {coulls,amw,fabian,reiter}@cs.unc.edu 2 Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] Abstract. The ability to monetize domain names through resale or serving ad content has contributed to the rise of questionable practices in acquiring them, including domain-name speculation, tasting, and front running. In this paper, we perform one of the first comprehensive studies of these domain registration practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 1 – Technical Capability
    Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability This page is intentionally left blank. Use or disclosure of data and information contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. Page II Solicitation Number: 1331L5-19-R-1335-0001 Volume 1 – Technical Capability Contents Cover Letter ............................................................................................................. 1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................. 2 Neustar: A Track Record of Exceptional Performance ...................................................................... 3 Neustar: Delivering Security, Stability and Performance .................................................................. 4 Neustar: A Unique Understanding of the usTLD Namespace............................................................ 5 Neustar: A Proven Commitment to Invest in Growth ....................................................................... 7 Neustar: Guaranteed High Performance with No Transition Risk ..................................................... 8 Neustar: Providing the Best Value Proposal ...................................................................................... 8 Technical Capability Factors .................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 18 1.1 The
    [Show full text]
  • Pdf Monetization to the Benefit of Attackers
    SIDN Labs https://sidnlabs.nl February 13, 2017 Peer-reviewed Publication Title: Domain names abuse and TLDs: from monetization towards mitigation Authors: Giovane C. M. Moura, Moritz M¨uller,Marco Davids, Maarten Wullink, and Cristian Hesselman Venue: 3rd IEEE/IFIP Workshop on Security for Emerging Dis- tributed Network Technologies (DISSECT 2017), co-located with IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Man- agement (IM 2017), Lisbon, Portugal. Conference dates: May 8th to 12th, 2017. Citation: • Moura, G.C. M., M¨uller,M., Davids, M., Wullink, M, Hesselman, C.: Do- main names abuse and TLDs: from monetization towards mitigation. 3rd IEEE/IFIP Workshop on Security for Emerging Distributed Network Technolo- gies (DISSECT 2017), co-located with IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2017). Lisbon, Portugal, May 2017 (to appear) • Bibtex: @inproceedings{sidn-dissect-2017, author = {{Giovane C. M. Moura, Moritz Muller, Marco Davids, Maarten Wullink, and Cristian Hesselman}}, booktitle={{ 3rd IEEE/IFIP Workshop on Security for Emerging Distributed Network Technologies (DISSECT 2017), co-located with IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM 2017)}}, title={Domain names abuse and TLDs: from monetization towards mitigation}}, year={2017}, month={May}, } 1 Domain names abuse and TLDs: from monetization towards mitigation Giovane C. M. Moura, Moritz Muller,¨ Marco Davids, Maarten Wullink, and Cristian Hesselman SIDN Labs Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland (SIDN) Arnhem, The Netherlands Email: ffi[email protected] Abstract—Hidden behind domain names, there are lucrative Domain Registration Domain Resolution (and ingenious) business models that misuse/abuse the DNS Authori- Registrar Zone tative DNS namespace and employ a diversified form of monetization.
    [Show full text]
  • Issues Report on Domain Tasting Doc
    Issues Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/01/01 14 June, 2007 GNSO Issues Report on Domain Tasting STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the revised and final version of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting produced by ICANN staff and originally submitted to the GNSO Council on 29 May, 2007. Details of factual corrections made to the 29 May version are in Annex 3 of this document. This revised and final report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June, 2007. SUMMARY This report is submitted to the GNSO Council in response to a request received from the At-Large Advisory Committee for an Issues Report on Domain Tasting. Issues Report on Domain Tasting Authors: Maria Farrell, [email protected], Karen Lentz, [email protected], Patrick Jones, [email protected] Page 1 of 39 Issues Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/01/01 14 June, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 2 OBJECTIVE 7 3 BACKGROUND 14 4 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS 26 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION 28 ANNEX 1 - GLOSSARY OF TERMS 31 ANNEX 2 – ALAC REQUEST FOR ISSUES REPORT ON DOMAIN TASTING 33 ANNEX 3 – CORRECTIONS TO ISSUES REPORT 38 Issues Report on Domain Tasting Authors: Maria Farrell, [email protected], Karen Lentz, [email protected], Patrick Jones, [email protected] Page 2 of 39 Issues Report on Domain Tasting Doc. No.: Date: 2007/01/01 14 June, 2007 1 Executive summary 1.1 Definitions Add Grace Period (AGP) A Grace Period refers to a specified number of calendar days following a Registry operation in which a domain action may be reversed and a credit may be issued to a registrar.
    [Show full text]