CooperMills

Posts Tagged ‘domain name law’

The issue of domain name wildcarding became a hot issue in 2006, after auDA deleted 19 domain names from a Registrant because they were wildcarded. This matter ended up in the Federal Court of Australia and was fought out, until the parties resolved the matter shortly before trial.

This Court battle caused auDA to develop an interim policy on wildcarding in 2007, which was to have been reviewed  but almost 3 years on and nothing has happened – so it remains an interim policy. Our enquiries of auDA revealed that they did intend to have their security and stability advisory committee (SSAC) look at the issue soon (that was in 2009) – it is interesting to note that at the time the interim policy was announced the SSAC didn’t have any members!

In order to understand wildcarding one must understand what it means. The auDA policy defines it as:

A “wildcard DNS record” is a record in a DNS file that will match all requests for non-existent domain names, so that a user who types a non-existent domain name into their browser does not get the standard “Error 404” message, but is instead redirected to another webpage.

The auDA definition is a little misleading. Firstly a wildcard record matches all requests for fourth level domains as opposed to ‘non-existent domain names‘. For example a domain coopermills.com.au exists, but if it were wildcarded then anything that was typed before coopermills.com.au with a full stop would resolve to (usually) a web page hosted at the third level domain. If an internet user was to type cars.coopermills.com.au, then it may resolve to www.coopermills.com.au. The effect of this is to in essence allow any fourth level domain, as opposed to manually creating them.

Wildcarding is commonly used by almost all parking companies such as Sedo. The rational is that it is better that an internet user is directed to content rather than an error – this enhances the internet user experience.

auDA had claimed that wildcarding caused the security issues identified in RFC 1535. The Registrant called the author of RFC 1535 Ehud Gavron to give evidence as an expert at the trial, who disagreed. During Mr Gavron’s visit (and after the matter had been resolved by the parties), Cooper Mills Lawyers hosted Mr Gavron who spoke on wildcarding of domain names in the .au context.

To download the podcast click on the link: Domain Wildcarding: The Implications for the .au Space

Tags: Cooper Mills Lawyers, domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers, domain wildcarding
Posted in Domain law and domaining, Podcasts | No Comments »

To all of our clients and visitors to our blog, we wish you seasons greetings and a safe and prosperous new year.

Thank you for your support in 2009, and we look forward to working with you in 2010.

Our office will be re-open on 11 January 2010.

Stay tuned for our new IT Law, Telecommunications Law, Domain Law and general Commercial Law articles / posts.

Tags: Commercial Law, domain law, domain name law, IT Law, telecommunications law
Posted in Domain law and domaining, General, ISP and Telco Law, IT Law, Podcasts, Privacy, Spam, Trade Practices Law, Uncategorized | No Comments »

After an 11 year process, ICANN has signed a historic agreement with the US Department of Commerce, which affirms its role as the supreme manager of the global domain name system.

In 1998 ICANN was set up by the US Government under the oversight of the US Government. Although sometimes controversial and subject to debate, ICANN has managed to successfully guide the global domain name system. ICANN’s most recent meeting was held in Sydney, and was attended by industry participants including Cooper Mills Lawyers.

According to ICANN:

When ICANN was created in 1998, with the assistance of the United States Government, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) process was started with the objective of achieving a noble goal: the coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers by the private sector through a not-for-profit organization where policies were developed from the bottom up.

The signing of the Affirmation determines once and for all that this model works.

The JPA was the seventh amendment of the original MOU.  Over the years there have been thirteen report cards on performance of responsibilities to the US Department of Commerce alone.  So why is the Affirmation of Commitments a further step in progress and internationalization of the ICANN model?

It commits ICANN to remaining a private not for profit organization. It declares ICANN is independent and is not controlled by any one entity. It commits ICANN to reviews performed BY THE COMMUNITY – a further recognition that the multi-stakeholder model is robust enough to review itself.

The full text of the Affirmation between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce is available here.

Whilst this is a historic step it is not likely to affect business as usual at ICANN. This Agreement comes at an important time with the introduction of IPV6 and new TLDs among, the host of other challenges facing ICANN.

Tags: domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers, domain name regulation, ICANN
Posted in Domain law and domaining, General | No Comments »

ICANN has just announced that since changes implemented in June 2008, Domain Tasting has dropped a massive 99.7%, which effectively spells the end of the practice.

Domain Tasting, is the practice of registering domains to identify their potential to attract visitors and typically revenue from online ads, and cancelling the registration within 5 days to avoid paying the fees if the domains did not attract visitors / revenue within this period – this was in effect a ‘try before you buy’.

ICANN says (in reference to their solution to this problem):

The solution in brief means that if a company registers and then returns more than a certain number or percentage of domains each month, they are charged for each additional registration above that amount. The result is that domain tasting becomes increasingly expensive the more a company engages in the practice for what may be speculative reasons.

The announcement by ICANN comes after the release of its report: The End of Domain Tasting – Status Report on AGP Measures.

The issue of domain tasting is not one that we have experienced in Australia.

Tags: domain law, domain lawyer, domain name law, ICANN, IT Lawyer
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »

Yesterday we received notification from auDA (the .au Domain Name Regulator) that they had instigated a review into the Domain Renewal Expiry and Deletion Policy.

According to auDA the review will focus on:

• 1. Whether the current 30 day pending delete period for expired domain names (ie. where the registrant has not renewed their domain name) is appropriate.
  2. Whether the current “domain purge” procedure (ie. where domain names are purged from the registry at a random time between 10.30am and 5.00pm AEST on the next business day after the pending delete period ends) is effective.
  3. What action (if any) auDA should take in relation to unofficial domain drop lists, and the domain-catching services being provided by some accredited registrars and other industry participants.

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, auDA may be using this review as a cover to stifle innovation by putting a stop to, or restricting domain drop lists and auctions. auDA needs to carefully consider these issues, the .au name space is already over regulated by world standards, the last thing we need is more regulation.

We have been asked to make a submission on behalf of Australian domainers – without speculating on what our submissions will say, it is clear that there is great support for the drop lists and auctions.

If you are a domainer and you would like to make submissions, we encourage you to contact us so that we can combine your comments / views with our broader submissions to this review.

Tags: auDA, domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »

A United States man has been charged in what is thought to be one of the world’s first cases where a suspected domain name thief has been prosecuted.

The accused allegedly hacked into an online account belonging to one of the owners of the popular P2P.com domain name. He then purportedly moved ownership of the domain to himself and then resold it via eBay.

The man was charged with felony charges of unlawful taking or deception, identify theft and computer theft. Each of the three counts carries a maximum sentence in the United States of 10 years in prison.

A civil suit by one of the legitimate owners of P2P.com is also pending. The owner claims he has spent 30 months and US$500,000 trying to reclaim the domain name. The civil suit is filed against the alleged thief, the group that runs the on-line account system that was hacked and the person who bought the domain name, Mar Madsen. Mr Madsen did not know P2P was stolen when he bought it for US$111,000. He still retains the domain name today.

The case has further raised concerns about specific laws protecting domain name owners and the industry’s failure to provide domain name owners with deeds.

Tags: domain law, domain lawyer, domain name law, domain name lawyer, IT Law
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »

Paul Twomey CEO and President of ICANN yesterday announced that he would not be seeking to renew his contract with ICANN, at the expiration of its term this year, and will move on at this end of the year.

Twomey made his announcement in front of 1200 delegates at ICANN’s 34th International Public Meeting in Mexico City.

Twomey said:

“Last year, I told the Board that I did not want to renew my contract as President and CEO for another 3 year term,” said Twomey. “While I am deeply and personally committed to ICANN and its success, I think this is the right time for me to move on to another leadership position in the private or international sectors.”

Twomey became CEO and President of ICANN in 2003 after 4 years as Chairman of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), after a distinguished career.

Tags: domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »

According to the Internet Commerce Association (ICA), the US State of New York has incorporated computers within the definition of gambling devices, in a pre-emptive move to avoid legal uncertainty over the definition of ‘gambling device’ in its own gaming laws.

According to the ICA:

The bill, A. 3079, would add a computer used for illegal gambling to the Penal Law’s definition of a “gambling device”.

These changes have been prompted by the long running 141 Domain Names case in Kentucky, that we have eagerly been following. As we reported in our last post on this case, the State of Kentucky had ‘appealed the appeal’ after losing.

Cooper Mills IT Lawyers are in close contact with the ICA who was fortunate enough to be heard by the Court, in the interests of its members, even though it was not directly a party to the proceeding. We hope to bring you more on this case as soon as there are further developments.

Tags: domain law, Domain Law Lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers, IT Law, IT Lawyers
Posted in Domain law and domaining, IT Law | No Comments »

ICANN, The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has just released the its Draft Applicant Guide Book for applicants wishing to register a new gTLD (top level domain). This brings us one step closer to the reality of new top level domains.

ICANN states that one of its “foundational principles has been to promote competition in the domain-name marketplace while ensuring Internet security and stability.” . With the soon to open gTLD application rounds it is hoped that applicants will apply for new gTLDs, and promote competition in the marketplace for existing gTLDs.

The possibilities appear to be endless, for example some suggestions have come from corporate organisations – for example Coca Cola could apply for the .coke gTLD or Pepsi could apply for the .pepsi gTLD. With a price tag of approximately $200,000, it is not likely that anyone other than corporates or cashed up entrepaneurs will be in a position to launch a gTLD – but it will only be a matter of time before a profitable business model will be developed giving new gTLDs broader accessibility.

As a consequence, ICANN claims that the “expansion will allow for more innovation, choice and change to the Internet’s addressing system, now constrained by only 21 generic top-level domain names. In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users—and growing—diversity, choice and competition are key to the continued success and reach of the global network.”

This is a positive, allowing for more flexibility and competition – but opponents argue that it will diminish the value of existing gTLDs, which are now a very limited commodity in light of the fact that almost all the good generic names have been registered in the existing gTLD space.

Only time will tell…..

Tags: domain law, domain lawyers, domain name law, domain name lawyers, ICANN
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »

In news to hand, the Kentucky Court of Appeal in a 2 to 1 judgment last night overturned the forfeiture order made by the Court at first instance in the long running 141 Domain Names Case in the State of Kentucky.

It is interesting to note that the majority only examined made two primary findings (apart from standing), (a) that domain names were not gambling devices withing the definition of the legislation; and (b) the forfeiture powers of the Court were limited to situations where there is a criminal conviction, and the legislation did not contemplate forfeiture powers in the absence of a criminal conviction for breaching KRS 528 (the section of the anti-gambling statute).

In our last post we raised doubt over whether domain names could be construed as gambling devices within the definition of Kentucky statute, the Court agreed with our interpretation and said:

“…it stretches credulity to conclude that a series of numbers, or Internet address, can be said to constitute a “machine or any mechanical or other device…designed and manufactured primarily for use in connection with gambling.” We are thus convinced that the trial court clearly erred in concluding that the domain names can be construed to be gambling devices subject to forfeiture under KRS 528.100.”

“If domain names cannot be considered gambling devices, Chapter 528 simply does not give the circuit court jurisdiction over them“.

The dissenting judge took the view that it was best not to look solely at the domains but also the computer systems that were used, and when unified, formed one component of the gambling device. As a consequence the domain names fell within the legislative definition.

In a twist, the State of Kentucky has filed a further appeal against this latest judgment by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Initial Court documents don’t make it clear what the grounds of the appeal are.

In the meantime, watch this space in one of the most interesting and important domain law cases!

Tags: 141 domain names, domain law, domain name law, domain names, Kentucky Court of Appeal, Kentucky domain forfeitures, Kentucky Domain Seizures
Posted in Domain law and domaining | No Comments »