Comments on: ICANN needs to clamp down on domain name abuse

Attorney Doug Isenberg believes the current Whois system and domain name abuses are bad enough; ICANN shouldn't make them worse.

[BoardJIVE]

NSI Is just as bad as the squatters

I have a website that I thought I created a unique name and
guess what, it was squatted. So, I went to networksolutions.com
(remember them) and thought, I try their "wait in line service" for
expiring domains and see if the one I want finally opens up.
Guess what, NS wants you to leave a credit card on file to BID on
the domain name. One, what a RIP. Two, who in their right
mind would leave their credit card info with any of these
fraudsters.

Another sneaky tactic by these squatters. They sit by and watch
domain names get registered then snap up variants (like plural
versions and others). I had that happen recently. One of my
domains have the number "one" in it (spelled out) and I wanted
to go back and register it a few weeks later. Guess what, it has
been squatted with the "1" in front of it. I can have it for a price,
imagine that.

[andrew999999999]

1

I doubt someone waited for you to register the domain with "one" in it before buying the domain with "1" in it. They probably just wanted the "1" domain. Unless, of course, your domain with "one" in it became instantly popular. That said, why not just pay the extra $8 to register the "1" and "one" versions when you initially got the domain?

[BoardJIVE]

This all stinks!

I have a website that I thought I created a unique name and
guess what, it was squatted. So, I went to networksolutions.com
(remember them) and thought, I try their "wait in line service" for
expiring domains and see if the one I want finally opens up.
Guess what, NS wants you to leave a credit card on file to BID on
the domain name. One, what a RIP. Two, who in their right
mind would leave their credit card info with any of these
fraudsters.

Another sneaky tactic by these squatters. They sit by and watch
domain names get registered then snap up variants (like plural
versions and others). I had that happen recently. One of my
domains have the number "one" in it (spelled out) and I wanted
to go back and register it a few weeks later. Guess what, it has
been squatted with the "1" in front of it. I can have it for a price,
imagine that.

[andrew999999999]

Dangerous generalizations

You are making some dangerous generalizations and suggesting that domain name speculators are bad. If you go into UDRP decisions thinking anyone who has purchased a domain for investment purposes is a "cybersquatter", how can you fairly arbitrate?

http://domainnamewire.com/2006/06/21/conflict-of-opinion/

[jabbotts]

It's the intent

Those that collect a list of domains to squat over have flawed intentions from the very beginning. It isn't right that one should hold domains for ransom and less right still that businesses give in providing the profit margin that keeps the illegitimate practice in place. It's a market based on fraud and blackmale no better than virul-marketing, phishing or any other internet enabled criminal activity.

To the squaters, your not buying a chunk of land in florida to unload later to some big business needing a new factory. This practice should not be regarded as a valid practice based on the realestate model.

Consider trying to register your name for a family domain and finding out that it's been registered by mr "for sale" whom you can contact through the free email flavour of the week. Oh, but he's not selling the domain rights to you for 50$, he's holding out for his 7.5 million cause he saw a news report about someone else hitting the jackpot.

By all reasons of rational, justification and hell, even codes of honour one would think that they should have access to a domain name based on there family name if it's not already being used for a valid business domain (ie. Mr Loyd in utah is out of luck cause Loyd's of London already got loyd.com).

In this instance, domain naming should take a cue from patent law; if your not using the domain for a valid purpose related to the name chosen, you shouldn't retain rights too it.

You don't get to register Wal-Mart.com so you can blackmail money from Walmart. You should not be able to register a domain when your intent is to post a five line index.html displaying "for sale".

[Richard Wixom]

cybersquatters have rebranded themselves as "domainers."

You are either terribly ill-informed or deliberately making slanderous remarks. Domainers are no more "cybersquatters" than corporations are monopolies.

Cybersquattering describes illegal behavior outside the norm in this industry. ?Domainers? is a general term for domain investors; a perfectly legitimate, legal and respected business. And, BTW, hundreds of millions of new investment dollars are pouring into this business. So I guess you?ll soon also be labeling most of Wall Street as ?cybersquatters?.

By labeling domainers as cybersquatters, you?ve written the equivalent of ?all mothers of domainers are w*ores?. I think you should reconsider your remarks.

[Richard Wixom]

Cybersquatters rebranded as "domainers."

You are either terribly ill-informed or deliberately making slanderous remarks. Domainers are no more "cybersquatters" than corporations are monopolies.

Cybersquattering describes illegal behavior outside the norm in this industry. ?Domainers? is a general term for domain investors; a perfectly legitimate, legal and respected business. And, BTW, hundreds of millions of new investment dollars are pouring into this business. So I guess you?ll soon also be labeling most of Wall Street as ?cybersquatters?.

By labeling domainers as cybersquatters, you?ve written the equivalent of ?all mothers of domainers are w*ores?. I think you should reconsider your remarks.

[jabbotts]

no no, they had it right

If you buy domains without the intent to use the domain for posting valid and related content, your a cybersquater. All the money on wallstreet won't change that. Investors care about return on the dollar not the morality of how that return is generated.

I can hear the response now, "Oh, but there are no laws against it"

We're still in the wild west of ARPA net's evolution. I'm no advicate of big brother's control but there are many places that law makers need to catch up.

[Seaspray0]

Would "Ticket Scalper" be more appropriate?

Because that's exactly what is happening. The guy who buys the tickets only buys them on the premise that he will sell them later. The scalper has no intent on actually using the tickets. It's the same with "domainers". BTW: ticket scalping is illegal in my city.

[andrew999999999]

Is Isenberg a Cybersquatter?

Mr. Isenberg has some explaining to do.

After labeling people that own domains but don't do anything with them "cybersquatters", it has come to my attention that Isenberg falls into the "cybersquatter" definition he has created. Doug Isenberg of Atlanta owns CouponCodes.com, according to Whois archive records. Not only is it redirecting to a parked page, but he's also hiding behind domain privacy.

The irony kills me.

[Frank Michlick]

More details

I've got some more background on this here:
http://www.domaineditorial.com/archives/2006/06/21/on-cybersquatters-and-whois-privacy/

[jothan frakes]

Shock and Awe over the Domainer = Cybersquatter label

Knowing Doug Isenberg, my jaw hit the desk when I read this particular piece. I've not known him to exhibit this type of blanket statement or throw such antagonism into the world.

Rather, I've heard him express a very enlightened, methodical and pragmatic view of the world of domain names, with a calm rationale and approach.

This seems completely unlike the Doug Isenberg or the GigaLaw.com website that I have gotten to know.

This is the basis of my shock.

To clarify the term domainer... You'll hear variations on the basic definition because it is largely a tech-slang term like blogger or techie. What a person would hear pretty consistently in the different descriptions of what a 'Domainer' is, would be that a domainer is a domain enthusiast or enlightened user of domain names.

Sure, some people who are domainers allegedly use the technology in manners that are frowned upon or inappropriate for intellectual property interests or trademark holders.

Don't let the actions of that small segment of the people who have donned the moniker 'Domainer'.

Not every Domainer is an alleged cybersquatter.

There are more people who call themselves domainers that operate with integrity than there are bad players.

It is just too broad a sword to swing towards a community of enthusiasts in the domain name industry and individual registrants.

I am a domainer. I am not a cybersquatter. I don't like the label of domainer getting tainted like this.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot.

Business Law, Family Law, and Intellectual Property Law are all areas of practice in the legal profession, among many others.

Many folks spend a long number of years of study, working dilligently to obtain their opportunity to take a bar exam and hopefully pass along to become a lawyer.

There are a spectrum of focuses and specializations in the legal profession, is my point. In that same spectrum are also personal injury attorneys, DUI specialists, and other areas of focus.

Many different attorneys approach their business in many different ways. I am not an attorney. I respect most attorneys. I respect Doug Isenberg.

I know many wonderful, wise and well educated lawyers that I know operate with the deepest integrity. Lets call these honorable players.

I have also met attorneys who I am certain would steal a penny from a paper cup at a small child's lemonade stand if they thought it would benefit themselves, and probably sue the child for a paper cut they get stealing it. Lets call these dishonorable players.

Sure, there are some dishonorable, bad players, and sure, they unfortunately tarnish the profession of being a lawyer.

Should the world brand the term Lawyer in a negative light, or thrust a stigma on it?

Maybe I should ask that question differently.

My point is, for those that work hard to build integrity in their profession, does the external labelling offend?

[jberryhill]

Hear Hear

"[http://...|http://...]businesses would be unable to assert their legal rights or, at least be unable to do so without expending an exponentially greater amount of time and money by resorting to expensive and slow investigations and legal processes."

Good show.

Those "legal processes" are a real stumbling block to businesses that want to asert their legal rights.

Coming from a lawyer, that's awfully admirable.

[zouzas]

CNET

According to whois ,CNET registered owner of
Events.com domain name ,takes you to your so called parked page loaded with useless link adds when typed into the addres bar.So what would you call CNET domaineer or cybersquatter??? but then again maybe when a big company does it it's called strategic diversification of assets or some other hot air line the analysts can come up with.

[andrew999999999]

Isenberg, are you there?

It sure would be nice if Isenberg would respond to the allegations about his practices...

[Hardrada]

Scumbags rebranded themselves as lawyers

I met a number of scumbags who became attorneys in my life.

[Seaspray0]

ICANN is irresponsible

By allowing people to register domains under obvious false information, they have proved themselves incapable. And this is the same body that wanted control of the root DNS servers? By allowing people to have a domain name for 5 days free of charge is obscene. Phishers only need 5 days. By allowing false registration, they allow spammers free reign to hide themselves. We need to DUMP ICANN for a more responsible organization.

[andrew999999999]

Whois

False information in Whois is a big problem. But how would you propose verifying the information?

[zouzas]

CNET WOW Store.com PPC all the way

Besides events.com going to useless parked pages loaded and "clogging the internet with junk" per your column which CNET owns per whois,,, also according to whois CNET sends another one of CNET's domain names Store.com to a parked page with fabulous as the PPC provider ,,,,
So CNET who your writing for, practices these "cybersqautter" practices as well or now CNET is rebranding it self as a domainer?? ,maybe you should point that out to your readers what would you call it when a large company like CNET does it what would you call them???

[zouzas]

CNET sends Store.com to PPC parked pages!

Besides CNET sending events.com to ppc parked pages ,CNET registrant of store.com per whois also sends store.com to PPC or parked pages loaded with USELESS AD LINKS,,so looks like CNET is a "cybersquatter" per Your definition is trying to rebrand it self as a "domainer" interesting ,id like to hear what CNET has to say??

[zouzas]

store.com another PPC parked page by CNET

yup CNET registrant of store.com sends you to a ppc parked page,,cybersquater or domaineer ???

looks like CNET according to you is getting all my goodwill traffic from my site www.Store.us
wanna represent me in a cybersquatter suit against cnet??

[arborlaw]

The incentives in the domain name business are all backwards -- they practically require the registrars to break the law to make money. The cybersquatter is the domain name registrar's best friend.

When one of my legal clients lost its domain name due to an issue with notifications going incorrectly to an old e-mail account, Web Contents, Inc, a notorious cybersquatter with multiple decisions against it in NAF and WIPO, had backordered the domain through GoDaddy's own in-house domain auction system. Within minutes, Web Contents hosted a site on the same topic as my client's business, with an advertising farm that contained ads for my client's local competitors.

Wait a minute -- was my client the customer GoDaddy has in mind, or was Web Contents Inc. the real preferred GoDaddy customer? Web Contents had, in my informal estimate, about 30,000 domain names registered with GoDaddy. While GoDaddy honored my request to take the site down due to trademark infringement, it became obvious to me that I really had no bargaining power against what is probably one of their biggest and best customers.

Bidding for the squatted domain name at several auction sites was unsuccessful and the client's name dropped into the hands of an "Abu Murad" at Max Work Publishing, another notorious cybersquatter with dozens of "clients" in a "portfolio" which contains nothing but counterfeit sites meant to generate advertising revenue by drawing internet users in who are looking to find the original U.S. businesses. Located in Chittagong, Max Work Publishing holds itself out as a legitimate provider of web development and design service. (The appearance of the Max Work Publishing site makes it apparent that the company is not providing any web design -- it's unreadable.)

Companies like Max Work Publishing scam business owners and the public by working arm in arm with registrars who like their domain name parking money and with domain name drop catchers such as Name.com and Enom. Like most cybersquatters, Max Work Publishing picks up huge numbers of inadvertently dropped registrations at auctions with the big drop catchers and hosts sites which intentionally cause confusion between legal trademark owners and the counterfeit site. In the case of my client, the Max Work Publishing counterfeit site is a link farm that advertises businesses which compete directly with the trademark owner -- two of them are literally down the street. As is typical, my client has received several extortionate demands from Abu Murad and Max Work Publishing -- demanding high sums of money, threatening to post pornography, and threatening to transfer the domain name to a third party.

ICANN not only provides disincentives to this type of illegal and fraudulent activity -- it actually provides incentives, by enabling the name droppers to engage in trademark counterfeiting on the cheap, and by not policing and de-credentialing the registrars who are hosts for squatters such as Abu Murad and Max Work Publishing. The Internet is no longer the Wild Wild West -- it's time for the rule of law to be respected, and enforced.

[denniscitus]

I agree with aborlaw! screwed up cybersquatter... damn it!
Here is stroy: I am relative of James Carter, designer of her website from initially. It is: http://jamescartermd.com
Here mentioned Adu murad from Maxwork publishing company acquired her domain, copied/stolen site contents exactly from archive.org, monetizing by google adsense and trying to sell it at http://marketplace.sitepoint.com/auctions/65349
James Carter was a women doctor and died. I hate how her site live again.