Proposal surprises working group members.
Verisign (NASDAQ: VRSN) has proposed making Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) a consensus policy that would apply to legacy top level domains such as .com and .net.
Uniform Rapid Suspension is a quicker, dirtier version of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It was introduced along with new top level domain names as a way to assuage concerns that hundreds of new top level domains would lead to a massive surge in cybersquatting.
Although originally created for new top level domains, ICANN has negotiated the extension of URS into legacy top level domain names when it has renewed registry contracts with their operators. However, it did not include URS in the .com and .net contracts when it renewed them.
Yesterday, in a Right Protection Mechanisms PDP working group call, Verisign Policy Manager David McAuley made the proposal that URS be adopted as consensus policy and thus, apply to .com and .net. He stated:
Doing this — making URS consensus policy — would greatly enlarge application of what has become an important and effective tool for addressing trademark infringement and, in doing that, it also addresses other forms of abuse that can be carried along by infringing cybersquatting domains. And this includes technical DNS abuse like phishing, pharming, delivering malware, things like that, and also some forms of content abuse like selling counterfeit goods on a cybersquatted domain.
Several participants in the working group, including Zak Muscovitch of Internet Commerce Association and Kathy Kleiman of Domain Name Rights Coalition, pushed back on making it consensus policy and if it was an appropriate procedural move to make the proposal.
Phil Corwin, who previously represented Internet Commerce Association but now represents Verisign, noted that, even in the absence of consensus, Verisign could implement URS on .com. He stated that a decision not to come to a consensus on whether URS should apply to the remaining legacy top level domains doesn’t prevent Verisign from seeking an amendment directly with ICANN. However, he stated that he is not aware of any discussions within Verisign to pursue such an amendment.
The call concluded with a general consensus that there was no consensus. So we’ll see where this goes from here.
Interesting!
What was the catalyst behind this (quick) implementation, relative to your generous article last week?
FYI – It’s been docketed now; and the Defendant’s are being emailed.
Defendants being in part, Phil Corwin, Keith Drazik & Kathy Kleiman.
Likely USMCA.
Thanks be to President Trump.
The URS is a shoddy, cut-rate process that results in eventual termination of the domain owner’s rights to the disputed domain name. It was adopted as part of the new gTLD rollout. The URS was built into every new gTLD from the start. Registrants of new gTLDs knew that their rights were conditional on acceptance of the URS process.
.Com domain registrants agreed to no such process when they registered their domain names. This is a weakening of rights by imposing a flimsy procedure that quickly shuts down a website and forces the loss of the domain name. Most of the 130 million .com registrants are not aware that Verisign intends to impose this process on them.
It is an odd position for Verisign to take – to intentionally harm their customers by subjecting them to this back alley version of dispute resolution. The Working Group did not reach agreement that the URS should be added to .Com. If Verisign wishes to pursue a side deal with ICANN staff, outside of the multistakeholder policy development model, then Verisign will bear full responsibility for any bad consequences suffered by .com registrants from bad decisions under the URS. Such a side deal will likely be opened up for public comment, but from the recent public comments on the .org and .com agreements, we now know all too well that ICANN considers the public comment to be a meaningless charade and disregards even overwhelming opposition expressed through the public comment.
Phishing and fraud are real concerns and we need better tools to address them. The URS is not that tool. The URS’ focus is on whether the domain name is infringing on trademark rights. Yet the domain name is largely irrelevant in many phishing and fraud schemes.
The URS is a solution in search of a problem. ICANN should go back to the drawing board and develop a robust solution targeted to the most egregious forms of DNS abuse.
well said ..
Lol, was just going to write “well said” too.
Big +1 Nat.
With Phil representing Verisign making one want to reach for a barf bag.
It’s not impossible to reason Verisign might not have .com greater well-being in BEST interest.
They don’t really ‘OWN’ it in the way a nGTLD owns theirs…
Really this is purely food for thought – but Verisign COULD *ACTUALLY* be nGTLD fans.
Frank Schilling bought up dozens of nGTLD then smeared them along with his friends all up and down. He paid for propaganda everywhere.
Pump .com though every outlet he could…
Sent out a PRESS release that he was BUYING .COM portfolios…right before he DUMPED ALL his domains on GoDaddy for $100m.
Honest guys, these domainers…/sarc
Applying this policy to legacy extensions that have been around for 30+ years makes no sense. You are talking about assets worth from thousands to millions of dollars.
This process was designed to handle largely worthless domains, not to handle assets of this value. It should not be applied to legacy extensions period.
I hope massive portfolio holders like GoDaddy stand against this. They have as much skin in the game as anybody with all the portfolios they have bought.
Brad
Good point too
The registrant of Nissan.com would suffer the worst URS has to offer.
This will have no opposition. They successfully raised the registration and renewal prices and they will successfully implement whatever policies they want. Domain name investment community is too small and disorganized to defend its interests. All this coverage adds no value.
If you want to raise money towards litigation, that would be noteworthy. Otherwise it is just a waste of effort.
Good point.
Important mental framework for addressing this issue:
1. Ask who benefits? (And do that for all of life.)
2. Do not forget that those at the top do not care about you or your interests, at all. So what do they really care about.
Where is the face of David McAuley who suggested this?He should be ashamed of himself.
Why? He’s just doing what his employer wants.