Independent Review Finds ICANN Screwed Up In Approving... Then Rejecting .xxx

from the who-did-what-now? dept

If you haven't followed the .xxx saga, it's been a bit convoluted. While it's still not at all clear why we need top level domains at all any more (or, if we must have them, why they should be limited to the ones chosen by ICANN), for many years, ICANN has been in charge of reviewing various proposals to expand the available top level domains (things like .com, .net, .org, etc.). That's how we got other such useless TLDs like .info, .jobs and .mobi -- which have mostly just turned into money grabs for the companies that operate them, rather than anything that was really needed. .xxx is the same story. Obviously, it's a huge money grab, because whoever would operate it would stand to rake in the cash from porn operators looking to set up new sites. While ICANN initially rejected the proposal at the beginning of the decade, the guy behind .xxx tried again, and in 2005, ICANN agreed that .xxx met all the criteria and should be allowed.

So why doesn't the internet yet have this official redlight district?

Well, what really happened was that "protect the children"-type family groups freaked out about admitting to the fact that (gasp!) porn exists on the internet. Amusingly, some of those same groups and their favorite politicians had pushed for .xxx anyway, in an effort to force all porn to be located there. But, for some reason, after .xxx was approved, they suddenly freaked out that this somehow meant porn was okay, and started causing trouble. Suddenly, months after ICANN had already approved .xxx, the federal government (under whose umbrella ICANN kinda-sorta belonged) suggested rather strongly that .xxx was not a good idea. Suddenly, everything was put on hold, and in 2007, ICANN officially said no to .xxx.

This infuriated the folks behind .xxx, a group called ICM, and they asked for an independent dispute resolution, which was released last Friday. So, after all these many years, the review found that ICANN totally screwed up, and it never should have backed down after its 2005 approval of .xxx. It's also demanding that ICANN pay up for this review process, in the range of half a million dollars. Of course, the ruling is non-binding, so it doesn't necessarily mean that ICANN now does need to approve .xxx, but it makes it harder to explain why it hasn't. Also complicating matters is ICANN's more recent decision to let pretty much anyone with a ton of cash to throw away create their own TLD. So, perhaps the .xxx guys can just do that...

Filed Under: .xxx, domain names
Companies: icann, icm

ICANN Can't Find Evidence Of Domain Front Running

from the still-looking... dept

There have been plenty of stories over the years of domain name registrars "front running" domain names, whereby they take domains that people do a search on, and then register themselves, hoping to sell it to the person who searched later for a higher price. Network Solutions, for example, was accused of this practice, though it insisted that it was only "protecting" the domain from others who might snatch it. ICANN was eventually sued for letting this happen. It appears that ICANN also hired Ben Edelman to look into the problem, and his research has apparently turned up no evidence of such domain front-running anywhere. He notes that this doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but he tested it all over and was unable to find it happening. Considering the vast number of reports and complaints about it happening in the past, does this mean that registrars have cleaned up? Or did Edelman miss something?

Filed Under: ben edelman, domain front running, domains
Companies: icann

Appeals Court Brings Back Lawsuit Over Possible Antitrust Violations Over .com Registry

from the this-could-get-interesting dept

For a long time, there have been accusations of questionable sweetheart deals by ICANN and whoever got to manage certain top level domains -- with no controversy bigger than the question of why VeriSign got to retain the .com and .net registries, and raise prices on it, without any opportunity for other providers to bid on the business (for the .com registry at least -- there was bidding on .net). There were also complaints about a secondary market for "used domains" that VeriSign was setting up. A non-profit group had sued VeriSign, saying that these were antitrust violations, but the district court had thrown out the case, saying that the group, called the Coalition for ICANN Transparency, failed to properly state its case (despite having an opportunity to amend the original filing). However, an appeals court has reversed the lower court, and will allow the lawsuit to proceed, which could mean problems for VeriSign (and potentially cheaper domain name registrations).

Filed Under: .com, antitrust, domain names, registry
Companies: icann, verisign

Get Ready To Pay Up Just To Let People Know How To Contact Your Company

from the a-total-waste dept

We've been plenty critical of plans to set up new top level domains for URLs. Each time there's an extension (such as adding .biz, .info, etc.), all it's really meant is that companies felt forced to cough up more money to secure domains they didn't need and wouldn't use. The whole thing is a scam. However, none is as ridiculous as the decision three years ago to add a ".tel" domain, where companies could put their contact info. Yes, apparently, some company convinced ICANN to extend the TLD space for .tel domains -- knowing that tons of companies would have to pay up, just to make sure there their contact info was at company.tel, rather than something like company.com/contact/.

While we hadn't heard much about .tel over the past few years, it looks like it's now set to get moving, as early registrations have opened up, and the one company (the registrar who is going to make all the cash for this) is encouraging companies to pay up. Companies will do so, of course, because they'll feel they need to protect their brand from others -- but they won't do so because it's useful. It's not as if anyone is having any trouble finding the "contact" forms on websites that have them. And, for companies that don't have easy to find contact forms, that's usually by choice -- so it's unlikely they'll suddenly rush to put up a .tel site. This whole process makes no sense, and ICANN, who orchestrated the whole thing, should be ashamed. Basically all it's done is create a totally unnecessary situation, where for no good reasons, a ton of companies have to hand over a bunch of money to Telnic.

Filed Under: .tel, icann, tlds, top level domains
Companies: icann, telnic

If ICANN Can't Even Control Its Own Domain Names...

from the what-hope-do-the-rest-of-us-have dept

ICANN has been something of a joke. Charged with managing top level domain names, the organization has done a lot more to annoy users and force them to keep buying new domain names at high prices than do anything constructive in managing TLDs. And now it turns out that even ICANN can get spoofed. Hoaxers convinced ICANN's own registrar to hand over the controls for two of its main websites: ICANN.com and IANA.com, allowing each to be redirected elsewhere briefly. While ICANN was able to regain control over both domains within 20 minutes, the ease with which both were hijacked suggests that perhaps a more constructive use of ICANN's time, rather than coming up with new TLDs that cost too much money, would be to come up with better ways to prevent such hijackings -- and better ways to deal with such hijackings if you don't happen to be ICANN.

Filed Under: domain names, hijacking
Companies: icann

ICANN Finally Relaxes TLD Requirements -- But It Still Looks Like A Money Grab

from the cluster.f**k dept

For years, we've been among those who wondered what good it did for ICANN to dribble out new top level domains (TLDs -- such as .info, .biz, .aero, etc.) every few years. For the most part, these new domains didn't do much other than force companies to buy their name on each new TLD as it was released. It basically just seemed like a way for ICANN and registrars to keep fleecing companies. Instead, we agreed with those who wondered why we had a limited number of TLDs in the first place. Why not just open it up and let any address work?

Well, now ICANN has taken a step in that direction... but, not really. It has agreed to open up the TLD system to those beyond what was approved, but anyone registering a name on a non-standard TLD will need to show a "business plan and technical capacity." Why do they need a business plan? What if they just want to set up a site for fun? Oh, right, because if you have a business plan, it means you have money to pay for stuff -- say $100,000 to $500,000?

In other words, rather than really opening up the system, it looks like yet another money grab.

In better news, however, it appears that ICANN has also decided to put in place a tiny charge for registering domain names and dropping them in the "grace period." This hopefully should greatly reduce the practice of domain hoarding (or "domain kiting" or "domain tasting" depending on who you talk to). As you may know. companies have been pulling all sorts of tricks using this grace period to register domains without ever having to pay for them. And, as a result, even companies like Network Solutions have gotten into the game, while pretending that they were holding any domain you searched for in order to "protect" you from others who might squat on the name.

Filed Under: domain kiting, domain tasting, icann, tlds, top level domains
Companies: icann

Network Solutions And ICANN Both Sued For Allowing Domain Front Running

from the as-expected dept

Back in January, it was revealed that Network Solutions was involved in the rather sleazy practice of registering up any domain you searched for through its search engine, and holding onto it for five days -- unless you bought it through them only. Since Network Solutions charges more than most other registrars, but is generally considered more "trustworthy" as a place to search for domain names, this was a pretty big deal. Lots of people search at NetSol and then register elsewhere -- so by holding on to the domains and forcing you to pay NetSol's inflated prices seemed like a scam. In fact, it seemed quite similar to the sleazy practices of questionable registrars, Network Solutions actually tried to claim it was actually to protect against those questionable registrars. ICANN, reprising its usual role as being powerless to do anything useful, promised to look into the matter, and promptly claimed that Network Solutions was doing nothing wrong. Many people feel otherwise, so it's hardly a surprise to find out that both Network Solutions and ICANN have been sued by lawyers attempting to create a class action suit over the activity. Whether or not it deserves a class action lawsuit is a separate discussion, but it's still difficult to understand how NetSol could possibly think this is a good idea or one that would be welcomed by anyone.

Filed Under: class action, domain names, front running
Companies: icann, network solutions

Can Google Solve The Domain Tasting Problem?

from the worth-a-shot dept

The issue of "domain tasting" (or "domain kiting") has been getting a lot more attention lately. Dell sued a company for pulling a domain tasting scam to make ad money off of domains without having to pay for them and ICANN has recently started to look into the problem. Of course, at ICANN's snail's pace, it didn't seem like anything was going to happen any time soon -- so it appears Google has decided to step up with a potential solution.

For those who don't know, domain tasting is used by certain companies to register a bunch of domain names and place ads on them. Since ICANN's rules say that you can register a domain for five days before deciding if you actually want to pay for it and keep it, the domain tasters just hold onto the domain for five days, put Google AdSense on the domain and collect any money before returning the URL. If a domain is particularly valuable, they might actually buy it -- but the more recent scam is to have a series of shell companies repeatedly take the domain for five days at a time, quickly reregistering it seconds after the previous "holder" gives up the domain.

It's clearly a scam and wasn't at all what was intended with the five day grace period. However, with ICANN taking the slow road towards dealing with it, Google has now announced that it will not allow any Google AdSense ads to appear on a site during the five day grace period. This is a bit of a surprise, since Google likely makes plenty of money from this practice. While domain tasters will quickly gravitate to other ad platforms, Google was probably the most effective one, and hopefully other leading ad platforms will follow Google's lead.

Filed Under: domain kiting, domain names, domain tasting, scams
Companies: google, icann

ICANN Investigating Sites That Buy The Available Domain You Just Searched For

from the about-time... dept

Last year, we wrote about some reports that various domain name lookup sites were actually scams designed to register the domains you wanted. What people were noticing was that they would do a search on a domain name and find it was available. Then, a day later, they'd go back to register it and find it was taken. That could be a coincidence, but it was happening so often, that some people began to suspect foul play -- and that some whois sites were either registering the domains themselves, or selling their search lists to speculators who were hoping to buy up the domains and then flip them to people who were upset about missing out on them while they were available. It only took a year and a half or so of complaints, but ICANN has finally decided this might be a problem worth investigating. What's slightly odd about the investigation, though, is that the comments make it sound like ICANN is most worried that people think this is happening -- rather than whether or not it's actually happening. That is, they're quite concerned that there's a perception out there that this happens. They might get further not worrying so much about perception and just focusing on what's actually going on.

Filed Under: domain names, scams
Companies: icann