Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Where do most cybersquatters live?

    1. BY - Aug 30, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 11 Comments

    A lot in the U.S. and China, but there are some important caveats.

    World Intellectual Property Organization, unlike its big peer, publishes robust statistics about the UDRP cases it hears.

    One of the more interesting stats is the location of respondents, i.e. the alleged cybersquatters.

    The stats WIPO provides need a few caveats if we’re going to draw conclusions about where cybersquatters live.

    1. These are the locations of the respondents in all cases, not just those when the complainant wins. (But complainants win most of the cases.)

    2. This is where the respondent says he/she lives. They could be fake addresses. Privacy services might skew it a bit too.

    3. It’s unclear if these numbers include ccTLD cases heard under variations of UDRP.

    OK, so here are the top 10:

    I think it’s also interesting to compare this data to where most complainants reside.



    Update 8/31/12:

    At the prompting of John Berryhill’s comment below, I’ve calculated the number of WIPO UDRP filings compared to the number of internet users in a country. It radically shakes up the order, sending China near the bottom of the list.

    This is a very crude analysis for a couple reasons.

    First, I only looked at the ten countries that were at the top of the respondent list. I suspect that countries such as China wouldn’t even fall into the top 10 on this list had I looked at more.

    Second, this only considers WIPO cases. Although National Arbitration Forum is smaller, it does hear a substantial number of cases. You might double the number of US cases to get the true number. But WIPO probably has a higher share of international cases. So while in the U.S. you might say there’s one UDRP per 150,000 internet users (double the # of WIPO cases), in other countries this crude methodology may not work. There’s also an Asian UDRP provider that might bump up China’s numbers.

    Also, one person can be responsible for a large number of cases.

    The most recent World Bank numbers for internet users are from 2010. I compared the number of 2010 users according to the world bank to the number of WIPO cases filed in 2010 alone.

11 Comments
  • Oh, more thoughtfully composed and helpful info from WIPO:

    Still no delineation for 3rd Level Sub-Domains as a contributive source to these problems!

    Clever coding to isolate 3rd from 2nd, making 3rd look guilty when 2nd is far, far more guilty.

    The US Federal District Court, Eastern District Virginia & I await comment.

    Cheers, Graham.

    Here is some useful information, for the less informed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting >
    Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.

    ICANN WEBSITE:
    http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/raa/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm

    1.16 A Registered Name is “sponsored” by the registrar that placed the record associated with that registration into the registry. Sponsorship of a registration may be changed at the express direction of the Registered Name Holder or, in the event a registrar loses accreditation, in accordance with then-current ICANN specifications and policies.

    3.7.3 Registrar shall not represent to any actual or potential Registered Name Holder that Registrar enjoys access to a registry for which Registrar is Accredited that is superior to that of any other registrar Accredited for that registry.

    3.7.7.2 A Registered Name Holder’s willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, its willful failure promptly to update information provided to Registrar, or its failure to respond for over fifteen (15) calendar days to inquiries by Registrar concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder’s registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar contract and be a basis for cancellation of the Registered Name registration.

    3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and is responsible for providing its own full contact information and for providing and updating accurate technical and administrative contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Registered Name. A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, unless it promptly discloses the current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

    3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder’s knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.

    3.7.7.10 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the Registered Name, the Registered Name Holder shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the Registered Name Holder’s domicile and (2) where Registrar is located.

    3.7.7.11 The Registered Name Holder shall agree that its registration of the Registered Name shall be subject to suspension, cancellation, or transfer pursuant to any ICANN adopted specification or policy, or pursuant to any registrar or registry procedure not inconsistent with an ICANN adopted specification or policy, (1) to correct mistakes by Registrar or the Registry Operator in registering the name or (2) for the resolution of disputes concerning the Registered Name.

    3.15 In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies.

    5.3.1 There was a material misrepresentation, material inaccuracy, or materially misleading statement in Registrar’s application for accreditation or any material accompanying the application.

    5.3.2.1 is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense related to financial activities, or is judged by a court of competent jurisdiction to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses; or

    5.7 Limitations on Monetary Remedies for Violations of this Agreement. ICANN’s aggregate monetary liability for violations of this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of accreditation fees paid by Registrar to ICANN under Subsection 3.9 of this Agreement. Registrar’s monetary liability to ICANN for violations of this Agreement shall be limited to accreditation fees owing to ICANN under this Agreement and, except in the case of a good faith disagreement concerning the interpretation of this agreement, reasonable payment to ICANN for the reasonable and direct costs including attorney fees, staff time, and other related expenses associated with legitimate efforts to enforce Registrar compliance with this agreement and costs incurred by ICANN to respond to or mitigate the negative consequences of such behavior for registered name holders and the Internet community. In the event of repeated willful material breaches of the agreement, Registrar shall be liable for sanctions of up to five (5) times ICANN’s enforcement costs, but otherwise in no event shall either party be liable for special, indirect, incidental, punitive, exemplary, or consequential damages for any violation of this Agreement.

  • Asia in general is my opinion..

  • John Berryhill says:

    August 31, 2012 at 2:40 am

    Just as Wipo never computes the incidence of UDRP’s per name registered, these states would be interesting on a per Internet user basis for each country.

    • I’ve added some data to the story comparing UDRP filings vs. number of internet users in the country. It paints a very different picture, and also reinforces the fact that there are very few UDRP’s filed compared to the “size of the internet”.

  • No surprises here.

    If I make a website and someone copies my style or code or domain name or whatever, I’m going to take it as a compliment. And as a business opportunity rather a weakness. The USA, for a country modelled as the ‘land of the free’, really should just let folk just get on with it. Recent litigation cases such as those against against Toyota, BP and most recently, Samsung, in my opinion, are an abuse of America’s power and bordering on the criminal. Ironically!

  • Hi ICANN Un-official fellow ;)

    As per: “Wipo never computes the incidence of UDRP’s per name registered, …”

    Ah, that makes sense because each name / case is unique; GENERALLY & EXCEPT, whereas WIPO have invested great effort & created a dedicated sub-set of rules, directly associated with TLD’s at the bottom of the list, exclusively for the protection of … You know who !!! … and their “domain name(s)” … YES, DOMAIN NAMES, which are not ccNSO qualifying as ccTLD, nor listed in IANA as official either.

    Have a look here > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/ < and you'll see WIPO do keep & offer records, so if they're going to prepare a section for ..?.. then they'll have to account for the cases they've deliberated.

    Domain Names

    Total number of domain names by year
    Average number of domain names per case by year
    gTLD by year
    All gTLDs (Ranking)
    All gTLDs by year and total

    Back to a clarification of ICANN Rules:

    3.7.7.2 A Registered Name Holder’s willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable information, (engineering a system of liability shifting of ownership won't excuse them from 'unreliable')

    As you'll know, or should know !!

    3.7.7.3 Any Registered Name Holder that intends to license use of a domain name to a third party is nonetheless the Registered Name Holder of record and ………….. Further to this is! A Registered Name Holder licensing use of a Registered Name according to this provision shall >> accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the Registered Name, << unless it promptly discloses the current contact information provided by the licensee and the identity of the licensee to a party providing the Registered Name Holder reasonable evidence of actionable harm.

    Sure, they 'promptly disclose' the 3rd Level information, sadly the 3rd Level buyer (INFRINGER / ABUSIVE REGISTRANT) is unaware of "buyer beware" as the sub-domains are almost always represented in the same information stream as the genuine TLD's when offered for sale, complete with ICANN logo(s) or word in paragraph.

    See court file submitted, it's likely on your desk already! Notice the word "weave". Engineering yarns of desire, ambition with premium distilled & aged BS into the rules of ICANN is a "woven" creation.

    Currently, somebody's been made aware of their past misrepresentations and now communicate the saleable service with much greater care.

    In due course, ICANN will become abruptly aware of Contributory Infringement; and that a failure over a long, long time to execute your rules, as listed here, qualifies ICANN as party to the act of Contributory Infringement. KNOWING and proof of knowing is abundant.

    Then of course there is this passage in ICANN rules:

    3.7.7.9 The Registered Name Holder shall represent that, to the best of the Registered Name Holder’s knowledge and belief, neither the registration of the Registered Name nor the manner in which it is directly or indirectly used infringes the legal rights of any third party.

    Planet earth to ICANN, hello out there … Is the air you breath in your opulent capsule so thin, you've suffocated?

    Having a Pro Se beat you … OMG … That'll bite eh!

    Cheers, Graham.

  • John Berryhill says:

    August 31, 2012 at 9:42 am

    “See court file submitted, it’s likely on your desk already!”

    Graham, as I mentioned in a previous thread, I’ve seen suicide notes which made more sense than what you purport to be a civil complaint.

    http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.vaed.283284/gov.uscourts.vaed.283284.1.0.pdf

  • Are you intimidating me into thinking my undertaking is suicidal. ??
    Not funny. ~ Rather a bullying statement. !!

    I’m not jumping in front of the proverbial train, I’m standing beside the tracks & lever, that shifts the tracks & sends trains off the main line, into the yard.

    While I’m certainly no polished & bespoke Lawyer, those awkwardly articulated points are all stated with merit and the related information is dutifully furnished, substantiating my view & position.

    ICANN, VeriSign & Network Solutions work for me, the customer; and if this passage below articulates your collective mindset, then Court was / is the only option.

    iii. There are a number of ways in which ICANN could approach the resolution of this type of problem which includes the full range of:

    ; ICANN saying nothing <>

    ; ICANN identifies a possible issue and ICANN files a complaint <>

    ; ICANN identifies a possible issue but relies on a complainant to file it formally <>

    ; ICANN identifies an issue, makes a decision and the applicant can appeal.? <>

    I’m glad for your feed back through this service!

    Cheers, Graham.

  • John Berryhill says:

    August 31, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Thanks for the population-normalized figures, Andrew.

    Perhaps others will find it more than a coincidence that the WIPO UDRP director and the greatest concentration of cybersquatters both come from the Netherlands.

  • They all live in Korea. I thouoght everyone knew that.

  • Hi Un-Official ICANN:

    Netherlands you say … No way!

    Yes, I’ve communicated with this person; and his boss, who will be sending case files / history of 3rd level problems to VAED.

    Guess what. The RIPE Net system is from Holland too; and curiously the founder was / is also on some ICANN Committee’s of which VeriSign has been a key player, for their Registry function, plus other component parts of their business.

    Additional to these functions, this same person has a strong relationship with CentralNic; and through these various roles, it looks like they had avenues to exercise some influence.

    2002 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_Supporting_Organization

    2002 > http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/captioning-morning-28jun02.htm Security and Stability Advisory Committee. > http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/riodejaneiro/captioning-board-meeting-27mar03.htm http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30aug06-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/rsep/technical-evaluation-panel

    Enola Gaye to WIPO … Package delivered, your integrity is about to be Wipo-ed out.

    You should have held the line, long ago; and not yielded to being the protectorate for a Domain Name Holder, peddling 3rd level domain names!

    As supposed IP luminaries, you should have known ICANN rule 3.7.7.3 and 3.7.7.9 and let those aggrieved by CentralNic address the proper route, which would have terminated them, long ago, since they are … NOT ccNSO listed in IANA as a “legal” municipality.

    I hope the US Federal Court levels the fiefdom of WIPO, since they’ve got more power than a Pro Se.

    ICANN; don’t be so smug, your not looking so rosy either!

    Said the little boy in the crowd, “The Emperor is naked!

    Cheers, Graham.

Leave a Reply