Verizon has several recommendations for ICANN — including listening to the recommendations it has already received.
I’ve read dozens of comments submitted to ICANN about its new top level domain name applicant guidebook. Perhaps the most thoughtful comments in the latest round were from Verizon (NYSE: VZ), which is known in the domain community for aggressively pursuing cybersquatters. You can read Verizon’s comments here (pdf).
I talked to Verizon Vice President and Associate General Counsel Sarah Deutsch yesterday to see what the company thinks ICANN should do before moving forward with its rollout of new gTLDs. Even in its primary role as a trademark owner, it shares many of the same concerns that other internet constituents have.
Verizon is disappointed that ICANN is pushing forward with the new gTLD process in the face of so many comments and threshold concerns. “We hoped they would have delayed [the process] after getting the first round of comments,” said Deutsch. “Rather than take stock of hundreds of comments they received, rather than slowing the process down, they just released another version of the guidebook.”
The company is in a unique position to evaluate new mechanisms for handling domain disputes and required checks and balances because it played a part in shaping the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Verizon isn’t just a trademark and copyright holder, it’s also an ISP. Therefore, it has had to deal with the consequences of DMCA from both sides: as an ISP and a rights holder.
One of the company’s suggestions is to create an expedited suspension mechanism for domain names that infringe trademarks. As a result of Verizon’s experience with DMCA, it has ideas about how this could be structured to minimize abuse. Among other checks and balances, a domain subject to the equivalent of a “take down notice” would not be turned off. The domain would just be locked from transfer pending the outcome of a dispute resolution similar to UDRP.
Verizon also supports a “loser pays” model to keep companies from filing frivolous suspension requests. It also suggests that trademark owners that wrongfully use the suspension process might be barred from using it in the future. (There is currently no penalty under UDRP for a complainant that is found guilty of misusing the UDRP proceedings.)
The company believes a so-called “white list” of reserved domain names should also be considered. If “Verizon” were on this list, for example, then no entity other than Verizon could register the second level or first level domain for the keyword.
Many domain name owners are concerned about the white list concept because trademark holders might try to assert rights to generic terms. For example, Hearst is also in favor of a white list and wants the generic term “Cosmopolitan” reserved against all possible uses.
Deutsch thinks that a properly designed expedited suspension system could negate the need for a white list. She also said “There would have to be strong hurdles to get on the reserved names list.” One of those hurdles would be proving that the brand has been subject to cybersquatting in the past.
Although some of Verizon’s suggestions may worry domain name owners because of the potential for abuse by trademark holders, some recommendations are shared with other ICANN constituents such as domainers. For example, Verizon wants price caps on TLD operators, and cites the equitable treatment clause in Verisign’s registry agreement as reason for concern. Surprisingly few companies have raised this issue with ICANN, perhaps because they aren’t aware of it. “We were very shocked to learn about the equitable treatment clause,” said Deutsch.
As one of the United States’ biggest brands, Verizon has spent considerable time and money defending against cybersquatters.
Apparently it’s working. The company has seen a decrease in cybersquatting activity of its brands because of its publicized legal actions. Deutsch claimed Verizon will get an additional nine million visitors to its web site this year from domain names it has reclaimed through its enforcement actions.
But the company is worried a slew of new top level domains will bring it back to square one.
Domainer says
Quote –
“Verizon also supports a “loser pays” model to keep companies from filing frivolous suspension requests”
Naturally, she would want that. She would use it to bury us in legal cost with frivolous cases. Eventhough, she also states she is against Reverse Hi-Jacking abuse.
It would be similar to have the oil industry write the U.S. Energy Bill.
I’m happy Verizon is against the new gtld’s.
But, I also know they would like to have our generic domains. Especially, if they could acquire them thru UDRP.
Plus, have us pay the legal cost and also be labeled with the scartlet letter “cybersquatter”.
Andrew Allemann says
Domainer – although it’s fair to question some of Verizon’s business practices, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest Verizon would do this. I haven’t seen a single frivolous UDRP from them. And if they filed frivolous requests through a loser pays system, then they would have to pay the fees when they lost (and you wouldn’t). It’s possible a loser pays system would include some reimbursement for legal expenses, too.
M. Menius says
We need to not tar and feather a company that has offered reasonable recommendations, and which is siding with the larger domain community against an obviously flawed ICANN tld proposal. Insinuating that Verizon are after people’s generic domains shouldn’t be said without clear evidence, precedent.
Steve M says
Actually, I’m fine w/much of Verizon’s positions … but let’s keep in mind that it’s far easier (and fair & reasonable) for them to have protection of unique, non-generic, made-up words like “Verizon,” (i.e. Exxon, Xerox) than for words like “entrepreneur,” which; based on all their lawsuits; Entrepreneur Media seems to think they have the legal rights for all or virtually all possible uses.
Would be nice to hear Sarah’s thoughts on why Verizon believes it’s O.K. to serve up ads to their ISP customers (like me) when they can’t (clears throat) determine (clears throat again) what site a searcher is trying to find; including when the legal trademarks of others are at least one of the search terms.
Andrew Allemann says
Steve, Sarah did provide me her thoughts on that but I couldn’t work it into the article. I agree with some of her points, but am not sure if it tips the scales in their favor.
1. If you typo a domain, the first thing you see on the page is a link “did you mean to go to realdomain.com…”
2. You can opt-out, which you can’t do of domain parking
3. Show organic listings in addition to ads (note that Google now requires you to show organic listings on some parked pages)
4. Work with Yahoo, which has stricter rules about bidding against a trademark
I think that covers her points. Of them all, I think #1 has the most merit. Sarah also said that most of their competitors offer something similar, which really doesn’t matter to me. After all, I can’t say “everyone else is cybersquatting so it’s OK”.
David J Castello says
I find it incredible that ICANN is still plodding forward in the face of so much resistance. If the Verizon or the IOC really want to get ICANN’s attention they should sue them.
A. Naun says
Did you ask any questions about Verizon’s stance on their own monetization of paid search landing pages for TM domains? Would they also try to monetize typos of new tld’s, like they have with current tld’s, or would they put in technical measures to prevent other TM holders from experiencing the same type of traffic redirection abuse that they are claiming?