| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Verisign typo-squats
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 54 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Comparing a paid-ranking search engine to a telephone directory service is pretty far off the mark here.
When Neulevel ran its "experiment" with this a while back, a similar argument was made relative to "coca-cola":
------
http://www.biglist.com/lists/lists.inta.org/tmtopi cs/archives/0305/msg00066.html
> What if the service was one in which you typed in "www.cocacooa.biz" and it
> returned a redirect page that said "Did you mean "www.cocacola.biz" and
> allowed you to click on that to get to the real site. Wouldn't that be
> better than getting a 404 error? Isn't that better for the user community
> and trademark owners?
The top sponsored result provided by your selected search engine, LookSmart,
for "cocacola" is a scalper selling tickets to the NASCAR Coca-Cola 600 for
approximately $300. It is most certainly not the Coca-Cola Bottling Company,
unless they are not whom you meant by the "real site".
-------
Essentially, redirecting to a paid search engine permits "typosquatting on the cheap". Instead of registering a single typo of a trademark and setting up a website for it, all I have to do is submit a sufficiently high bid for the search term through Verisign's sole-source PPC engine and voila - I now have the top position for *every* typo domain on that trademark. What's particularly nice about this method is that I can limit the time and budget in such a way that the intermittent appearance of my bidded result (say, limited to 10,000 hits or one week, whichever comes first) allows me to reap the gain before any legal action can even be commenced.
Your assumption about a "directory service" is somewhat naive.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:What about telephone numbers
by jberryhill
|
| Starting Score: |
1 |
point |
| Karma-Bonus Modifier |
|
+1 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
Naive or not, that's besides the point. They key to what Richard said is that thankfully, we receive a recorded "error message" when we dial a wrong number. The same should be for DNS. In a very crude, cave man (or cave bear [cavebear.com]) sort of way, it makes sense to compare DNS to a telephone system. When you type in a domain name, your browser crunches a few things very rapidly by processing your "call" for the number associated with a name to one of the thirteen geographically located root servers. Either operator A through M respond, and provide the correct number, and the user's request is processed. It's really quite simple, again, in a crude way. :)
Cheers,
DougDoug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
