Things could be about to get real for Filipino cybersquatters. The Filipino Senate recently passed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. While still awaiting passage in the Filipino House of Representatives, the proposed legislation criminalizes cybersquatting, making it a "punishable act." Those found guilty could face six to twelve years in prison, a fine of up to 500,000 Philippine pesos (the equivalent of about $11,600), or both.

That's quite a contrast to the U.S.'s Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) of 1999. Although ACPA allows for the awarding of damages between $1,000 and $100,000 for cases involving willful cybersquatting, research by FairWinds in 2008 revealed that courts have rarely assessed damages at the upper end of this range. Accordingly, trademark holders prefer the relative ease and lower cost of recovering cybersquatted domains through the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which only has the power to transfer or cancel domains, and therefore provides little deterrent to cybersquatters. The result? Just about anybody can register a domain that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark with relative impunity.

If the Cybercrime Prevention Act passes, it will be interesting to see what happens to cybersquatting in the Philippines. As for the U.S., I suspect that the risk of twelve years behind bars would be enough to deter all but the boldest of cybersquatters.

Anyone who has lost a domain because they let the registration lapse knows how important it is to make sure to renew your domains before the registration expires. Just ask Trevor Tahlem Smith, Jr.

Not familiar with Mr. Smith? You might know him better by his stage name, Busta Rhymes. That’s right, the iconic rapper’s domain name, BustaRhymes.com, expired today. According to The Domains, the domain listed a management company, Flip Mode Licensing, LLC.

Looks like Busta better busta move to get his domain back.

Scouring the Internet for an authentic Albert Pujols jersey to commemorate the 2011 World Series? Before you bust out your credit card, take careful note of the website hawking the goods. Just as the St. Louis Cardinals were orchestrating one of the greatest comebacks in baseball history, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) division cracked down on 58 websites hawking counterfeit goods that infringed on trademarks owned by Major League Baseball, as well as by the NBA, the NFL, and the NHL. The story, along with a complete list of the seized domains, was covered by Internet Retailer this week.

A quick look at the list of the seized domain names reveals that 31 out of the 58 contained team, league, or company trademarks, such as MinnesotaTwinsStore.com, CoolNFLJerseys.com, and CheapNikeDunksOnline.com. This underscores the wisdom that cybersquatting is sometimes a means to an end for cybercriminals; in this case, it was used to sell counterfeit goods, while in other cases, it is used to spread malware or phish for sensitive information.

As we so often see in our work here at FairWinds, by taking advantage of well-known, trusted brands and marks, cybersquatters are not only able to drive Internet traffic to their sites, but they can also manufacture a sense of legitimacy that woos customers into purchasing counterfeit items or divulging personal information. For brands, the problem is obvious: this practice infringes on their intellectual property, dilutes their brand, and leads to negative customer experiences.

As in baseball, the best defense is a strong offense. Brand owners must proactively register strategic domain names and then develop a systematic approach towards monitoring the domain landscape and recovering any infringing domains. Failure to do so may leave you down by two runs with only one strike left in Game 6. While the Cards pulled it off, I’m betting that’s a risk to your brand and your company that you’re just not willing to take.

Monday was a long awaited day for many in the domain industry. While some of us have spent the past few years working hard to make the planned launch of new gTLDs as orderly and minimally harmful as possible, others pushed hard for less regulation and an earlier launch. At the end of the day, we have achieved about as much balance as  possible from ICANN, an organization that is biased to begin with.

New gTLDs are coming. On January 12, 2012, the application window will open and ICANN will accept applications for new gTLDs for four months.

If the past two days are any indication of what the next six months will be like, I think we are all in for quite a ride. From early in the morning until well into the night these past two days, I have spent hour after hour discussing and responding to brand owners’ inquires about what to do now. I’m sure today will be no different, as the news cycle has likely pushed the topic of new gTLDs up to the higher echelons of most corporations.

While a select few companies have already announced their plans to apply for their own .BRAND gTLD, the realization that new gTLDs are now around the corner has brought the issue to the top of the minds of everyone that has been waiting on the sideline to see what would happen.

Now that there is no more uncertainty as to whether new gTLDs will be officially approved or not, it is time to begin planning. Like it or not, we will see many, many new gTLDs applied for and launched within the next year. Some will succeed and some will fail. Whether a company ultimately decides to apply for their own gTLD, this impending change will alter the way the Internet looks and how users move through it. All brands will have to adapt to the new landscape. Because of the potential ramifications of this change, the C-Suites of all major companies need to be aware of this issue.

The game is set to change and brand owners need to be ready. But that doesn’t mean they should rush into a decision as some companies are suggesting. Rather, right now they need to take the time to fully understand how new gTLDs will impact their digital strategy, as well as all the benefits and risks of both owning and not owning their own gTLD. The wait and see period is over. Now it’s time to formulate a plan.

If you need the facts and would like help navigating through the noise, drop us a line.

I recently had the opportunity to read A. Michael Froomkin’s research paper, “Almost Free: An Analysis of ICANN’s ‘Affirmation of Commitments’” (AOC), which examines both the legal and political effects of the AOC. In my opinion, Froomkin’s research is thorough and enlightening, explaining how and why the AOC came into being; what it changes and what it does not change; and what kind of impact it will have.

Froomkin begins by looking at what the AOC would actually change in light of ICANN’s pre-existing relationship with the Department of Commerce (DOC). His analysis reveals that the AOC contains no binding promises. None of the promises ICANN enumerates is new, and none provides the U.S. Government with any way to enforce them. For ICANN, the AOC is an outline of what sort of organization it would like to be. The very process that produced the AOC is evidence of ICANN’s continuing failure to commit to any sort of genuine transparency and accountability.

Although Froomkin’s overall conclusion is that the AOC has been greatly over-hyped, he concedes that the agreement is a significant milestone in terms of the evolution of the management of the domain name system (DNS), but more so for its political rather than its legal impact. As a legal document, he opines that the AOC is a “paper tiger”; it seems threatening but it is actually quite harmless. As a political document, it is much more significant. By signing the AOC, the DOC seems to be acquiescing to pressure from the international community to make control over the governance of the DNS more global. However, the AOC most directly benefits ICANN itself; with the AOC, ICANN manages to loosen ties with the U.S. government, but also from other governments, whose only channel of influence is the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).

The paper also revisits two underlying issues that the AOC certainly glosses over: what, if any, standby or fail-safe control the U.S. retains over the DNS, and to what extent that even matters. This is particularly important considering that the DOC will have to make a decision about the fate of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) contract in September. Froomkin notes that there is a possibility that the U.S. will realize that the DNS’s centrality and importance are diminishing and be willing to let it go. For now, though, domain names are still highly valued for the market power they give over DNS service providers, the economic power they give over registrants and third parties and the political power they give over freedom of speech and geo-strategic power. Regardless, ICANN will remain an important figure in all of this; even if control of the DNS lacks political relevance, it still has a substantial economic impact.

Froomkin’s analysis is useful as we face the possibility that ICANN’s proposed introduction of new gTLDs could become a reality. The NTIA, the agency within the DOC charged with interacting with ICANN, created the U.S. government’s first public dispute with ICANN via a letter from Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling. The letter includes specific complaints about the new gTLD program, and also notably points out ICANN’s failure to meet any of the obligations identified in the AOC with regard to its decision making processes – transparency, accountability and fact-based policy development. Froomkin’s research provides more than just insight into the AOC. It provides insight into ICANN’s relationships with the U.S. and international governments and organizations, as well as its motives and decisions concerning DNS, the IANA contract, and new gTLDs.
 

It started out by taking on established search engines back in the late nineties. Then it decided to take on Facebook and other social networks with its Buzz feature. And now, Google is looking to take on digital music behemoth iTunes with a new, cloud-based music service.

Various tech outlets, including CNET and TechCrunch, have been writing about Google’s latest move for the past few months, but the company has been pretty tight-lipped about the details of the new service.

Just this morning, TechCrunch announced in a post that Google has recently registered a bunch of domain names related to both music and clouds – fitting, since this will be a cloud-based music service. According to the post, Google registered GoogleBass.com, GoogleTenor.com, GoogleAlto.com and GoogleSoprano.com, as well as GoogleNebula.com, GoogleThunder.com and GoogleLightning.com.

Now, simply registering these domains is not concrete evidence that Google plans to use any of those names for its new service. Loyal FairWinds readers will remember back to early last year, when Dell and Microsoft began referring to their then-new tablet products as “slates” because they thought Apple was planning to call its tablet the iSlate, based on the fact that Apple had acquired iSlate.com. As we all know, Apple decided to go in a totally different direction.

While I wouldn’t put money on any of these names just yet, it is still possible that Google will end up using one of them. In order to avoid this kind of speculation, or to keep the details of a big launch under wraps, companies should consider going incognito to register domains for a new product or service. By that, I don’t mean simply using a proxy service at a corporate registrar; companies should consider using retail registrars to register the domains under a name that is not directly associated with the company, or using that registrar’s proxy service. Then, once the new product or service launches, they can transfer and update their domain names.

Earlier this week, Symantec released Volume 16 of its Internet Security Threat Report (ISTR), which according to the company, “is one of the most comprehensive sources of Internet threat data in the world.”

Regrettably, the ISTR 16 reinforces what we here at FairWinds as well as an array of cybersecurity experts have been saying for some time – that cyber attacks are rapidly increasing in both frequency and sophistication. Attackers are also moving more and more into social networking sites and mobile devices.

Another highlight (or lowlight, as the case may be) of the 20-page report is that attacks are continuing to capitalize on consumers’ trust of big name companies. The Hydraq attack used links containing trusted brand names to dupe Internet users in an attempt to steal intellectual property from major corporations.

This past year saw a 93 percent increase in the total volume of cyberattacks over 2009, in part thanks to shortened URLs, which obscure the real URLs of sites and make users much more vulnerable to attacks.

Though it paints a grim picture, the ISTR 16 is worth looking over. Both businesses and everyday Internet users should be aware of the scope of threats out there in order to take precautions to protect themselves from attacks.

It’s about a year until the Iowa caucuses, which means that the media have been buzzing with speculation about which Republican politicians will challenge Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. As potential candidates start to play the “Maybe I will, maybe I won’t” game, there is one piece that many seem to be forgetting: securing their domain names for their future campaign websites.

We looked at some of the most popular GOP front-runners – Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich – to see whether or not they own key domain names to support a possible run at the presidency. In a recent CADNA piece about the domain names owned (or not owned) by members of Congress, we discussed how important it is for politicians to register their domain names and prevent others from squatting on their online identities. For one thing, owning their names as domains gives politicians an easy to remember platform that they can communicate to constituents. For another, preemptive domain name registrations can help prevent rivals from registering their names and using them for their own purposes.

A recent example from last fall’s Midterm Elections involved incumbent Democrat Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, and Sharron Angle, a Republican candidate running for Senate in Nevada. Angle had registered the domain name BobMenendez.com and pointed the domain to her own website. Currently, the domain resolves to the site for the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Apparently the five previously mentioned politicians have been too busy trying to decide if and when to announce their presidential ambitions to have paid much attention to this lesson. Only Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee own their names as .COM domains (MittRomney.com, TimPawlenty.com and MikeHuckabee.com). None of the five own their name plus the phrase “for president” or “2012” – as in SarahPalinForPresident.com and NewtGingrich2012.com. Yet, all of those domains are registered, all by third parties, some going back as early as 2004.

Domain names that consist of personal names can be very difficult to reclaim once they have been registered, because many third party registrants can claim fair use rights to the domains. Politicians have it especially tough, due to free speech protections. So being a first mover and proactively registering domain names is critical, especially for presidential hopefuls.

According to a recent post on its PlayStation blog, Sony has released a new software application that allows users to create new applications using PlayStation Move’s technology. PlayStation Move is Sony’s foray into motion-controlled gaming; the new app allows academics, researchers, or even savvy gamers to integrate the Move technology with their PC for a variety of purposes. And the name of this groundbreaking application? Move.Me.

Those of you who remember the Anything.Goes blog post should be starting to notice a trend here – apparently, Sony has a penchant for the “dot,” as evidenced by its Make.Believe (“make-dot-believe”) project and now this new Move.Me (“move-dot-me”) app. In that post, we conjectured that Make.Believe sounds like it could be a domain name, especially if new gTLDs become a reality.

But the difference here is, Move.Me is a domain name. And Michael Berkens of The Domains blog points out that Sony doesn’t own it – he does. The site is underdeveloped, but according to DomainTools, it has been registered since 2008. And where Sony advertises the URL Sony.com/MakeDotBelieve for its Make.Believe project, both Sony.com/MoveDotMe and Sony.com/MoveMe point to error pages.

The Move.Me app sounds really cool and useful. Too bad Sony doesn’t own the domain to go along with it.

Thirty-one years ago today, on February 22, 1980, the U.S. Olympic hockey team did what no one in the world thought they could – they bested the USSR to win the gold medal in a 4-3 match that came to be known as the “Miracle on Ice.” 

I was reminded of this fact through the History Channel’s “This Day in History” segment. Turns out, the History Channel also owns some gold medal-worthy domains. The History Channel homepage can be found at History.com and the domain ThisDayInHistory.com points to the “This Day in History” page on the channel’s website.

We’re big fans of the Olympics here at FairWinds, and we even have two aspiring Olympians on our staff. Both are rowers and are vying for the chance to represent the U.S. in London next summer!