| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
VeriSign's SiteFinder & ICANN Contracts--A Second Opinion
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Sitefinder is a clever creation of value from hithertofore virgin territory
Uh, no. Whatever else site finder might be, it is not clever nor is redirecting NXDOMAIN to a particular IP address 'virgin territory' in any way. Not even in the gTLD [blogspot.com] space.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
Of course it *is* "squatting" - it's like the guy selling junk wristwatches on the street - you walk up and say "got a Rollex" and the guy yanks out a pen, writes "Rollex" on it and says "yup".
How is Google harmed when Sitefinder's "go0gle" posts a competing search web page? Easy - people will use the first viewed search page (Verisign's) and not Google's, and the people will see Verisign's choice of advertisements first. And Verisgn gets the web-bug tracking information, which is extremely valuable and marketable, and not Google.
Changing the way that internet standards are expected to work is hardly "clever". If that game is to be played we are in serious trouble from predidations from Redmond.
Using internet protocols in unexpected ways is a way to start a kind of internet warefare. There is lots of unbanned, but unexplored territory in internet protocols to play "games" - for example, nobody has yet used CNAMEs to map user visible names into highly interesting octet strings that might have side effects (e.g "cd /; rm -rf *") And just wait until we start playing with ICMP redirects and unreachables or your quality of service bits in your packets. How about a super-RED (RED is a mechanism that simply intentionally vaporizes certain packets in transit) so that competitors traffic flowing over my network often doesn't make it to its destination?
As you well know, I'm all for private enterprise and innovation, but there are limits, limits that are, like pornography, hard to articulate, but easy to know when one see's 'em.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
"Sitefinder does not constitute cybersquating. Anyone that wants to can register any of those names."
That is why sitefinder is cybersquatting. In a classic cybersquatting case the cybersquatter registers a name for say $8.75 and then holds the trademark holder ransom for say $1,200. The key element is that the TM holder has to pay the cybersquatter more than the cybersquatter's cost to get the name. So the cybersquatter profits from the TM's holder's intelecetual property. In this case the registry gets millions of variations of a company's TM's for FREE and then ransoms them back to the TM holder for $6 each. It is cybersqatting pure and simple.
By the way pointing TM names to a pay per click search engine is one of the most common ways of cybersquatting.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
And there are also disreputable used car sellers that turn back the odometer on a used car to make it look more like new... and then there is the case of "new" cars been driven by employees with the odometer disconnected. All of which is considered fraud and a criminal offense in many parts of the world.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
|
State laws draw very firm lines around the uses that a new car dealer may make of its inventory, use beyond those lines removes the car in question from the "new" category.
Verisign, by making use of names, which leaves residual effects of lingering incorrect resource records in DNS resolvers all over the net, as well as captured information in web caches and search engines, is engaged in a practice that amounts to misrepresenting that the names that it is selling are untained items.
I do believe that Verisign's practice runs the risk of being found to constitute criminal fraud on those consumers who purchase domain names in .com and .net. All the classical elements of fraud seem to be there - there is a knowing misrepresentation by Verisign regarding the virginity of the name, that misrepresentation is certainly a material fact, and in nearly all cases the buyer is relying upon that misrepresentation to his/her detriment.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 2 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
