Selling registrations under second level domains that match new TLD strings will increase confusion as new TLDs launch.
Earlier this month CentralNic went public, largely on the promise that new top level domain names can generate significant revenue for the registry services provider.
Yet it’s CentralNic’s current business model – which it continues to extend – that could cause a lot of confusion when new top level domains arrive.
CentralNic uses a lot of second level domains that match top level domains, such as US.com and DE.com, and offers third level domain names below these.
For example, you can register myname.us.com through CentralNic, while myname.us may already be taken.
CentralNic is also now offering third level domains under a second level string that will soon be a top level domain in the case of Africa.com.
If history is any guide, a lot of people navigating to something other than a .com or dominant ccTLD will end up typing .com at the end of the web address.
For example, if they see or hear example.web, they’ll type in either example.com, example.web.com, or exampleweb.com.
You can argue that this behavior will change, but I don’t think it will happen overnight. (It may not be limited to .com, either. The .kiwi applicant was upset when New Zealand’s .nz started offering third level domains under .kiwi.nz.)
That’s why people who own a .com that matches an applied for new TLD string are so delighted. It will result in a lot of traffic to their second level .com domain.
There are a number of ways .com owners can take advantage of this. One is to forward all error traffic to their home page. In the case of a niche domain this could be highly targeted traffic. They can also wildcard subdomains to parked pages.
The thing the .com owner could do that would cause the most damage to a new TLD operator is sell subdomains like name.africa.com. Not only will these subdomains attract traffic, upsetting (future) domain registrants and confusing internet users, but they will also cause confusion in the domain registration path if people are offered both name.africa.com or name.africa as options.
I suspect a lot of people that register name.africa.com instead of name.africa will do so on accident.
I don’t blame the .com owner for taking advantage of this. And I suppose all is fair in love and war: I doubt CentralNic would do this if it caused problems for any of its own TLD applicants.
But it’s bound to cause quite a bit of confusion for domain registrants and internet users alike.
Graham Schreiber says
Hi Andrew:
ICANN, will very shortly be relieving CentralNic of their portfolio of “Bad Actor” ~ Domain Names that violate United States Law: 15 USC § 1125 – False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden.
It will be an obligation under Court Order, as per: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca4/13-1812/
What do you think the United States Department of Justice has in store for ICANN?
I think they’ll be seriously annoyed, that ICANN “knowingly” let WIPO “Harm American consumers” by helping CentralNic, avoid US Law.
History is well published, showing “Disparate treatment” by ICANN, violating NTIA contract.
Cheers, Graham.
Volker A. Greimann says
Wasn’t that case thrown out by final judgement of the district court and the motion to appeal dismissed?
See:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/litigation/schreiber-v-dunabin/schreiber-order-appeal-17sep13-en
Mark says
I am just wondering – when CentralNIC is a public company now, should not they publish statistics how many domains they have registered under each of their extensions? Such information would be helpful to understand how popular are such “hacks” or “alternatives”, as I doubt they are really in big numbers. It they were, company would be valuated much more…
Andrew Allemann says
Mark, given that their revenue last year was £2.933 million, I’d say none of the individual extensions has substantial registrations. The domains themselves (e.g. US.com) are worth a lot, though 🙂
Graham Schreiber says
Hi Mark:
Consumers in the United Kingdom were informed of their “Fools Gold” thirteen (13) years ago, as published in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/sep/10/money.efinance
Notice that ICANN were mentioned too!
What did ICANN do? NOTHING.
ICANN just let CentralNic violate RAA and “harm American consumers” by exposure to fraud & infringers.
Regards, Graham.
Volker A. Greimann says
I think you misinterpret that article. The author wanted to inform his readers that subdomain names will probably never achieve the increase in value similar to that of .com domain names and that subdomain names are no real domain names. And obviously, registrants of subdomain names should still beware of registering protected terms, just like with “regular” domain names. Cybersquatting of subdomain names is just as problematic as cybersquatting of domain names, but not necessarily more so.
There is nothing that would prevent someone from providing a registration service for subdomains unless it were designed to specifically infringe on third party rights, but that, to my knowledge, is not what CentralNIC has been doing. Similarly, anyone can create any number of subdomains under their domain name and use them for any legal purpose. I am sure you have done that for some of your domain names as well.
Frankly, your beef should be with the registrant of the subdomain name, not with the service provider or ICANN.
Graham Schreiber says
Hi Volker:
As “Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel” http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Volker_Greimann
Here’s the passage you missed; and should be able to decipher.
“All of the names for sale are registered with CentralNic’s important-sounding [polite version of BS] ‘Global domain names registry’.
However, it has no official standing as a registry.
Buyers of the subdomains simply have their names entered in its database. [ The Whois is manipulated, as You’ll know and can plainly see, CentralNic license account info precedes Infringer. VeriSign & Network Solutions know of this manipulation. Red Flag.]
CentralNic is lobbying to have subdomain names recognised by Icann, for obvious commercial reasons, but for now this remains only a remote possibility.
[ THIS IS KEY! ~ They ARE NOT ccTLD’s of ccNSO of ICANN, nor have they been sanctioned. Therefore, Section 15 1125 & RAA 3.7.7.3 & 3.7.7.9 are applicable. ]
Other names that have been offered for sale by CentralNic include those with Ford, Ferrari, Marks & Spencer and Barclays before the eu.com suffix. ….. Marks & Spencer, for example, says it will take legal action if the name Marks&Spencer.eu.com is sold or used for a website.”
Cheers, Graham.
Old Guy says
CentralNIC Sucks!
Graham Schreiber says
Get a spine, then share an opinion “Old Guy”.
Graham Schreiber says
Hi Volker:
I’ll compose a complete reply and update; and post it here, but 1st, let me thank you for your kind observation:
https://domainnamewire.com/2012/08/03/centralnic-lawsuit/
Volker says:
August 4, 2012 at 10:42 am
Well, the guy has studied the system and made the connections!
So he must have. Point. On the other hand he points out that he is damaged, which should be considered as well?
Since Nominet may now take an oath from its registrants, there may be something there as well.
He may also just be on the ripe, and not be made fun of…
………………………………
And yes; the Lawsuit is proceeding:
ICANN are under the scrutiny of the United States Department of Justice, for failing to enforce the RAA, resulting in “harm to American consumers”.
CentralNic … As you well know, have made an enterprise out of “Inducing” the act of “Infringement” which under United States Law constitutes “Contributory Infringement”.
Since when, other than CentralNic, has an Registered Domain Name Holder been allowed to Mediate between the “Infringed” and the “Infringer” … given that they themselves are the conduit, as “Contributory Infringer”.
It’s a “Civil Crime” in the US to create a “False Designation” product / service. And, without question CentralNic have positioned themselves as a ccTLD to the lesser informed consumer.
See US Law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
eNom / Demand Media market the Sub-Domains, by informing the Consumer that they are an “ICANN Accredited registry”. Of which they are; however, Uk.com or US.com etc, ARE NOT … as you’ll know, ICANN accredited ccTLD’s with the ccNSO.
Nor are they they listed in the IANA Root, which would prevail upon them different rules, exempting them from the DOMAIN NAME HOLDER Rules of the RAA.
The act of securing WIPO, to remove CentralNic’s portfolio of DOMAIN NAMES from the Jurisdiction & Venue of the US reflects poorly on them.
Plus, WIPO having undertaken this act, dose precious little to endear their services to the US Government. A reality which will soon be drawn to their attention, by the DoJ.
Cheers, Graham.
Graham Schreiber says
Hi Volker et al:
The lawsuit is being continued; because Honourable Judge Lee, while being highly knowledgeable about Law, can’t be an expert in every circumstance presented.
Much like Hospitals have Doctors finely trained & tuned in specific medical processes, Courts can’t always forecast which “Doctor” is best suited to an issue.
American Law is rapidly expanding, with regard to the Internet, of which the US regulates the primary TLD’s.
Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_in_Internet_cases_in_the_United_States or below, where you’ll see the required connections have been addressed.
Over and above the fact that I HAVE A USPTO TRADEMARK – REGISTERED.
From Wikipedia …
Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities.
>> Both Lorraine Dunabin & CentralNic conduct “Internet Activities” that employ the “.COM”.
>> Relating to the “.COM” Virginia has: Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter.
Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having “purposely availed” himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer.
>> Both Lorraine Dunabin & CentralNic communicate in a “public forum” the “.COM”.
>> Via the posting of business services, using a Virginia, USA based “.COM” constitutes offering a dialog to the public, inviting conversation related to the offering & sale of goods & services,
>> A public forum, also called an open forum, is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums. The government creates a designated public forum when it intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse.
Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions (in line with the Due Process requirements of the U.S. Constitution), and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be “haled” into court.
In the Internet context, personal jurisdiction cases often involve proprietors of websites or Internet-based services that either advertise or actively promote their businesses nationally, but argue that they do not have sufficient contacts within a particular state to subject them to litigation in that state.
>> Continuous & Systematic contact with the particular state is clear; and undeniable.
>> CentralNic are Registered Name Holders of a “.COM” subject [ Disparately ] to the Terms & Conditions of Domain Name use, as published by ICANN. Specifically, sections 3.7.7.3 & 3.7.7.9.
>> Lorraine Dunabin as expressed, is bound by financial contract to the Jurisdiction & Venue of Virginia’s Eastern District in Alexandria, through the Sub-Domain of UK.com [owned by CentralNic] and sold by eNom / Demand Media, marketing the Sub-Domain as an “ICANN Accredited registry” [ Lower case “r”]
>> CentralNic are predominantly Liable in the United States, as they “License” the use of their Domain Name, with a “Known” intent of “Inducing” “Infringement” which constitutes, “Contributory Infringement”.
>> This act strictly violates the ICANN RAA.
With the growth of the Internet, courts have faced the challenge of applying long-standing principles of personal jurisdiction to a borderless communication medium that enables businesses and individuals all over the world to instantaneously interact across state boundaries.
This is a rapidly changing area of law without a U.S. Supreme Court precedent. There is however, a growing consensus among Federal District Courts as to how to determine when personal jurisdiction may be asserted in an Internet context.
>> If required, I’ll set the Precedent, at the U.S. Supreme Court.
>> Although I have every confidence in the Fourth Circuit Court, to understand my plight; and see with clarity the many interwoven violations of the Law drawn to their attention.
Types of personal jurisdiction
Besides facing constitutional limitations on personal jurisdiction, a court must also comply with state long-arm statutes, which enable personal jurisdiction over a party who has committed a tort within the state.
>> Both Lorraine Dunabin & CentralNic have “committed a tort within the state” of Virginia.
This personal jurisdiction is specific to the act, and a party cannot be sued for unrelated activity. In many instances, state long arm statutes extend personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
>> It is well established law, that the Eastern District of Alexandria
Virginia is the central location for any and all violations of the law, Worldwide, incorporating the “.COM” TLD.
There are two kinds of personal jurisdiction, general and specific jurisdiction:
General personal jurisdiction
A company doing business on the Internet may be sued for any reason in any jurisdiction where it is incorporated or has its center of operations.
>> “or has its center of operations.”
>> The “.COM” is the central figure in my plight; and it’s “the centre” from which both Lorraine Dunabin & CentralNic conduct their businesses communications & sales efforts.
A court may also have general jurisdiction over a party if it has systematic and continuous contacts with the state where the suit is being brought.
>> Yes, unequivocally this is the case!
The strict requirements for general personal jurisdiction, which would apply to all types of claims whether or not related to the specific contacts at issue, make the theory less applicable for most Internet claims where a party is not deemed “present” in a forum for all purposes.
Specific personal jurisdiction
In contrast, specific personal jurisdiction allows a defendant to be sued in a forum only on the basis of the defendant’s contacts with the forum.
A court can establish specific jurisdiction over a defendant only if he or she has “certain minimum contacts” which give rise to the action in question in the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
>> The litmus test for “Minimum contacts” is met and exceeded.
Internet cases with an out-of-state defendant will often require the plaintiff to assert specific personal jurisdiction.
>> I have a USPTO Trademark and was “in-state” since 1998 and Lanham Act covered, since 2006.
>> CentralNic have office in the United States; and a combined Enterprise, with offices, with Network Solutions.
Where a civil action has been brought based on a defendant’s Internet activities, courts have generally declined to assert personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of web advertising.
>> Both Lorraine Dunabin & CentralNic .. conduct sales & communicate via … this Jurisdiction.
Instead, courts have looked for more active contacts with a forum, such as Internet sales to the forum residents, conducting business in the forum state through numerous contacts, or entering into specific dealings with forum residents.
>> Using a “.COM” has “an effect on United States consumers”.
>> Lorraine Dunabin is “knowingly” of my business, through prior exposure & “willfully Infringing”.
>> CentralNic are marketing a false ccTLD.
>> CentralNic are Contributory Infringers.
>> The other Defendants are guilty as earlier communicated.
The actual number of visitors to a defendant’s website from citizens of the forum state has also sometimes been considered in an analysis of minimum contacts.
>> Google, Yahoo & MSN, all corporations of the USA drive traffic to our websites.
Standards for personal jurisdiction in Internet cases
In evaluating the assertion of personal jurisdiction in cases involving the Internet, courts have applied both traditional tests and standards customized to the online world.
Traditional tests of jurisdiction
Minimum contacts
Following International Shoe, courts have generally applied a three-part test in evaluating minimum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction:
The nonresident defendant must do some act or consummate some transaction with the forum or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections[;]
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities[; and]
exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.[5]
>> My Lawsuit meets the expectations of these three (3) requirements.
Marc says
Hi Graham,
Have you considered another point of view on CentralNIC’s domain offering that is perhaps less personal to you? There are tens of thousands of .com domains which represent known brands, trademarks and businesses/individuals that have been purchased by domainers looking to profit from their ownership. CentralNIC provide another opportunity for those unfortunate people to purchase a domain which still represents their business and is well placed for SEO. They can’t do that in the .com space because of cybersquatters so CentralNIC is actually a good thing for them.
Maybe you should consider whether the inconvenience it is causing you is great enough that it is worth closing off that opportunity for others.
Just a different point of view, not taking sides.
Marc