More time to weigh in on new top level domain name plan.

ICANN frequently extends the deadline to submit public comments on both major and minor issues. But this is done prior to the comment period ending to give people more time to consider how they want to weigh in.

A number of people requested additional time to comment on the proposed Final Applicant Guidebook for new TLDs but were rebuffed and the comment period ended a week ago.

Now it has risen from the dead. Today ICANN decided to extend the public comment period to January 15.

I suppose some additional worthwhile comments will be generated based on what transpired last Friday at the ICANN board meeting. But those people who rushed to get (perhaps subpar) comments in by last Friday won’t get that time back.

by Kevin Murphy

Domain name registrars cannot be held responsible for spammers who hide behind Whois privacy services, a California appeals court has ruled.

Plaintiff Daniel L Balsam had won a $1.125 million default judgment against a spammer after receiving over 1,000 pieces of pornographic spam.

Unable to recover the money, he found that the spammer had hidden his identity behind Tucows’ Whois privacy, so he sued the registrar for the cash instead.

He argued that he was a third party beneficiary of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, the contract that Tucows and all other registrars must sign.

Part of the RAA, section 3.7.7.3, requires registrars to ensure registrants who license their domains to others are still liable for how they are used.

Balsam argued that this meant Tucows’ privacy service, under which its own contact details are entered in the Whois, was liable for the actions of the spammers who use it.

But in a ruling (pdf) handed down yesterday, Judge Margaret McKeown of the ninth circuit Court of Appeals opined that while Tucows the “registrar” is bound by the RAA, Tucows the “registrant” is not.

What’s more, she ruled that because the RAA has a specific “no third-party beneficiaries” clause, Balsam had no basis for his claim.

The ruling may actually go counter to ICANN’s interpretation of the RAA (pdf), which suggested that privacy services could be held liable if they did not hand over the registrants contact details.

As DNW reported last week, registrars including Tucows expressed anger that ICANN’s interpretation of the RAA could lead to “frivolous and vexatious lawsuits”.

Kevin Murphy is a freelance journalist covering domain names and author of Domain Incite.

ISP tries to get domain name registered many years before it even existed.

A World Intellectual Property Forum panel has found California internet service provider Webpass, Inc guilty of reverse domain name hijacking in its attempt to get the domain name WebPass.com. The ISP uses Web-Pass.com as its web page.

Webpass, Inc. didn’t start using the Web Pass name until 2007, but the current registrant of WebPass.com registered the domain name in 2001. As such, it’s impossible that the domain name was registered in bad faith unless the owner is psychic.

Webpass, Inc. and its representative (Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone) pointed to a misguided case Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows that some rogue panelists have used to argue a domain name doesn’t have to be initially registered in bad faith to still be in violation of UDRP rules.

But panelist Richard Hill wasn’t swayed. He was also a bit miffed that the complainant incorrectly argued that webpass.com hadn’t been used and this was evidence of bad faith:

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name, and that this demonstrates his bad faith. But this allegation is not correct. As the Complainant itself points out, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in the past.

In finding reverse domain name hijacking, Hill wrote:

The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking.

This is another example of a case in which the domain name owner shouldn’t have had to put up a defense at all.

Afternic “turns on” its two new partners, giving domain name owners access to a powerful sales network.

Yesterday I wrote about my success with Go Daddy Premium Listings. The only downside to the service is that your domain names have to be at Go Daddy. But there’s good news for domainers who want to get similar reach for domains that are currently at Moniker and eNom — those two registrars are now active with Afternic’s Premium listing service.

What This Means

If you have your domain names at eNom/eNomCentral/BulkRegister or Moniker, you can now get them listed for sale within the registration path at four of the top 10 domain registrars. In addition to these two new registrars your domains will be listed for sale at Network Solutions, Register.com, and Name.com directly within the registration process. Customers can immediately purchase your domain name through the shopping cart and your domain will be transferred to them without any direct involvement with you.

The domains will also be listed on other registrar and partner sites but without the registration path/instant fulfillment capabilities.

How it Works

All of your interaction for listing the domain names occurs in your Afternic account. After logging in you simply add your domain names and select the “Premium” promotion level. You will also need to add a “Buy It Now” price for the domain names.

Afternic then runs some checks including ownership and content (Afternic doesn’t sell adult, gambling, and trademark domain names), after which you “opt in” the domains.

Once opted in, you won’t be able to make changes to your whois information or push the domain name to another account without first opting the domain name out. You can still list your domains for sale on other web sites, but if you sell it elsewhere you should remove the listing from Afternic.

What to Expect

A select group of large domainers have been able to use the Premium Listing level at Afternic for the past year. They’ve told me the results were remarkable. Your success will depend on a couple factors:

-How good your domain names are. They don’t need to be “premium”; they just need to be domain names that someone might want to register for their own business.

-How you price your domains. This sales channel works great with small and medium size businesses. Keep in mind the typical Afternic sale is around $1,200. I suggest pricing your domains in the $600-$2,500 range for best results. The commission is 20% (net 15% if you park the domains with Afternic) with a $120 minimum.

Company redirects out of service phone numbers to similar businesses.

When a domain name expires it is often snapped up by someone with a similar business to the previous owner in an effort to get more business. Or the domain ends up parked with ads for similar businesses.

It looks like AT&T is taking a page out of the same playbook.

I called a number today for an insurance company I’ve used previously. They recently changed phone numbers and the number I dialed is no longer working. Rather than just a message to that effect, I heard this message:

“AT&T can help you find a similar business in the same area since the number you called is not in service.”

It then gave the names of three competing businesses to the one I called and offered to connect me to them at no charge.

I’ve never heard of this before, but it seems like a questionable practice. It may be that the insurance company used AT&T previously and then canceled the service. However it may have also have been a reseller of AT&T services (as was the case here).

Since AT&T is sort of the registry in this analogy, doesn’t it seem a bit like VeriSign’s short-lived site finder service?