IPC questions ICANN’s ability to execute digital archery.

Digital archery is doomed.

The clever way ICANN plans to “batch” applications for new top level domains will either be killed, or it will be subject to accusations and lawsuits.

Shortly after the bug in ICANN’s new TLD application system was revealed I wrote about how this was going to cast a shadow of doubt on digital archery.

Then, as the number of applications slowly trickled out and delays mounted, I mentioned it again.

Now ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) is sharing the same concern:

The “digital archery” batching method announced by the ICANN Board on March 28 is complex, untried, and readily subject to gaming. The paralysis of ICANN’s new gTLD application system (TAS), resulting from a so-called “glitch” that ICANN failed to detect in testing the TAS, has now persisted for nearly a month, with no defined end in sight. This episode inescapably casts doubt on ICANN’s capacity to implement another technically complex system for batching evaluation of applications. Another such “glitch” in the earliest stages of the most ambitious and far-reaching project ICANN has ever undertaken would permanently damage the organization’s credibility, and likely call into question its continued viability as the steward of the domain name system.

Now, I understand that the IPC comes up with a lot of stuff to complain about. But it’s right in this case.

If ICANN goes forward with digital archery, applicants who end up in later batches will rightfully distrust the system after what happened with TAS.

The only way to make digital archery work is to have someone like PWC manage it. It simply cannot be done in house at ICANN.

My recommendation: find a creative economic way to persuade some applicants to wait for a later batch. With over 2,000 applications and $350 million in the bank, there’s plenty of money in the war chest.

Panel rules company can keep Norcross.com domain name.

Marchex has successfully defended the domain name Norcross.com in a UDRP with the help of domain name attorney John Berryhill.

Marchex acquired the domain when it bought Yun Ye’s Ultimate Search portfolio.

Norcross is a suburb of Atlanta and the parked page at Norcross.com has shown links related to Georgia, hotels, etc.

The complainant, Norcross Corporation, sells viscosity equipment. While I’ll applaud it for owning the domain name viscosity.com, it clearly was on the wrong side of this case.

Norcross Corporation complained that Marchex said it would only entertain offers of $30,000 or more for any of its domain names. Some panelists think they are equipped to appraise domain names and make comments about how outrageous certain asking prices are. But this three person panel gets it:

The fact that Respondent was only willing to sell the domain name to Complainants for a sum far in excess of its out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the domain name does not establish the requisite bad faith since the Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain name. A domain name registrant is always permitted to sell a domain name to which it has rights for a profit; that constitutes bad faith only when the domain name was acquired primarily for the bad faith purpose of selling it to the trademark owner.

I’ll toast to that.

Company files two patent applications for making online ads social.

Google has filed two patent applications related to social interactions with online advertisements.

The applications, 20120116871 and 20120116867 (pdf), were filed in November and just published today. Both are titled “Social Overlays On Ads”.

The patent applications describe systems in which social overlays are placed on ads. For example, an ad my show how many people in your particular Google+ circles like an ad. It could also integrate into Google’s +1 system. If you +1′d an ad, members of your Google+ circles would then see that you like the ad. Viewers could also republish an ad to their social network, similar to how you can share a photo on Facebook now.

In the example below, the ad has a social overlay that says how many people in the user’s location +1′d the ad.

This idea sounds familiar to me. Let’s see, where have I seen something like this already…

Case filed in Arizona to halt transfer of domain name.

A Texas man has filed a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the transfer of ConnectedWorld.com, a domain name he lost in a recent UDRP decision.

In the suit (pdf), Jeffrey Smith claims he has been working on a social network for eldercare since 2008. When the domain name ConnectedWorld.com came up for auction last year, he paid $7,100 to acquire the domain name.

Earlier this year, Specialty Publishing Company filed a UDRP for the domain name. Specialty Publishing Company owns Connected World Magazine and runs a conference by the same name. The company won the UDRP case.

In his suit, Smith admits that he was aware of Connected World since he participated in one of its conferences and his employer advertised in the magazine. Yet he claims his purchase of the domain name was unrelated to this and was just for his eldercare business idea.

But Smith is going to face an uphill battle given the allegations made in the UDRP case against him.

According to the UDRP decision, the day after Smith acquired the domain name he wrote to Specialty Publishing Company stating “By the way – I had the opportunity to pick up the domain name [connectedworld.com] so I did. I didn’t have an agenda just saw it available and picked it up before someone else did.” That seems to fly in the face of his assertion that it was for his eldercare social network.

Further communications between the parties are even more damning. As written in the decision:

Respondent’s subsequent e-mails with the Complainant further support the inference that Respondent purchased and registered the domain name in bad faith. In several follow-up e-mails, Respondent informed Complainant that Respondent had been contacted by several people since Respondent bought the domain name (June 22, 2011 e-mail), that Respondent has sold domain names in the past (February 21, 2012 e-mail), that Respondent received a quarter of a million dollars for the sale of memorial.com (February 21, 2012), and that “Almost everything is for sale, we are just negotiating a price” (February 21, 2012).

If Smith is in the wrong, he could be opening himself up to paying a bigger penalty than just losing the domain name.

(As a side note, it does appear that Smith sold Memorial.com to Kevin Ham’s Vertical Axis in 2006. I don’t recall seeing this sale reported. Although I wouldn’t consider the assertion in the UDRP that he sold it for $250,000 proof of the sales price, it seems reasonable.)

Company that makes UDRP threat found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.

“If you don’t sell me your domain for $2,000, I’ll file a UDRP against the domain name.”

That’s effectively what a United Kingdom company threatened against the owner of the domain name edgePOS.com, according to the findings of a recent UDRP decision.

John Henderson (Holdings) filed a UDRP complaint against Xiaodong Zhang of Austin, Texas, over the domain name. Zhang said he registered the domain name for a point of sale system before the complainant wanted to start using the term.

According to Zhang, the complainant communicated with him on March 19, 2012 to ask him to sell the Disputed Domain Name (again). Following the respondent’s refusal the complainant threatened to institute a UDRP if the Zhang did not agree to an “offer of $2000”.

Ouch.

Perhaps John Henderson Holdings should have read up on the UDRP before making this claim. Its subsequent filing apparently lacked any support that Zhang registered and used the domain in bad faith.

Panelist Alistair Payne found in Zhang’s favor and also found John Henderson Holdings guilty of reverse domain name hijacking.