Equating domain parking with “social costs” should be struck from guidebook, organizations say.
Both Oversee.net and Internet Commerce Association have sent strongly worded comments to ICANN regarding a new provision inserted in the latest new top level domain guidebook.
As I wrote about in April, the latest guidebook asks applicants to answer:
What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs (e.g., time or financial resource costs, as well as various types of consumer vulnerabilities)? What other steps will you take to minimize negative consequences/costs imposed upon consumers?
Applicants will have to answer the question “Will you impose any constraints on parked sites, or sites that offer only advertising?”
In its comments, Oversee.net notes that “This evaluation criterion is not only opposite ICANN’s previous descriptions of domain name parking, it is directly opposite of ICANN’s description of its own mission.”
In fact, the company points out, ICANN’s web site states “ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet.”
You can read Oversee.net’s full comments here.
Internet Commerce Association writes:
New AG language that equates parked domains with negative social consequences and costs is unjustified, inappropriate, and at odds with prior ICANN findings and policy, proposed URS evaluation criteria, and WIPO guidance to UDRP examiners.
SF says
Two things need to be cleared up (in the court of law) once and for all.
1. It needs to be made clear that you can obtain domain names solely for the purpose of investment.
2. You can use your domains however you see fit, as long as it is legal.
Sounds like there are a lot of “interested parties” that would like to see domain parking (or any sites used purely for advertising) made illegal.
Joey Starkey says
Big Business is only out for itself. The rich want to stay that way and could care less about the little guy.
ICANN Is Corrupt says
Man…………….I am so sick of this.
WHAT A LOAD OF ICANN SH*T!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but talk about backdoor politics against domain investors and regular domain owners really.
John Berryhill says
What is interesting is that it is in a section on “cost to consumers”.
Ummm… since when is “advertising” a “social cost to consumers”? Silly me was thinking that advertising is the mechanism by which information about goods and services is communicated TO consumers to stimulate demand.
Andrew Allemann says
@ John Berryhill – I think new TLDs should be banned from advertising to consumers.
Louise says
I told you, and I’ve been saying for over a year: it’s preliminary to the Big Grab by Verisign and the Registrars of your dot coms.
Louise says
Don’t you see where this is going? ICANN promotes the concept of domain “squatter” to villify the individual domain investor, because it has its sites on your dot coms! The organized criminal element is obvious to me! Senior Vice President of ICANN Kurt Pritz mischaracterized domain investors as being fearful of new gtlds: “Domainers are against new gTLD’s because they will lose the value of their beachfront property,” in appearing before the house.
It’s like watching Madoff unfold, and nobody can conceive it.