New York Passing New Domain Name Law
In a move that flies in the face of established international guidelines, the New York Senate is pushing through a bill that would forbid registering the name of a living person with the purpose of selling the domain to that person.
The New York Senate’s bill is called “domain names cyber piracy protections act†and is championed by State Senator Betty Little (S2306).
Generally speaking, registering a person’s name solely to sell the domain to that person is a losing cause in UDRP arbitrations.
But the New York bill is scary for a few reasons:
1. The law can be twisted to violate free speech. I suspect this is the reason the law was written in the first place. A politician was probably mad that someone else owned her domain name. The bill specifically states that, in order to violate the law, the sole purpose of the domain registration must be to sell it. But I can already see how this will work. Someone registers a politician’s name, attacks the politician on the site, and then the politician approaches the domain owner to buy the domain. If the registrant responds to the request then this law will be invoked. Also, the law would prohibit someone from selling a domain to another person. For example, John registers the name of a right wing politician that is pro-life. A leftist organization approaches John wanting to buy the domain to use as an outlet to attack the politician for his political views. The proposed law would forbid this.
2. It flies in the face of established internet governance. If New York can pass its own laws, why can’t other states and countries pass their own regulations as well? New York really can’t control much outside its own state, as they “admit†in the bill:
“In a civil action commenced under this section, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs within the state if the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located within the state.”
I wonder if the bill’s writer knows what a registry is. The biggest registrar that needs to pay attention to this law is New York-based Register.com.
3. The bill is being championed as a way to protect identity theft. Seriously. According to a Senator Little press release,
“The New York State Senate today approved several proposals to combat the growing problem of identity theft, including legislation sponsored by Senator Betty Little that targets cyber piracy.â€
Politicians always like to use scare tactics to push through their own agendas. This is a clear case.
The good news is that the senate added a provision that is sure to backfire:
“In addition to injunctive relief, the court may fine the registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, one thousand dollars for each day the violation occurs. The court may also order the transfer of the domain name as part of the relief awarded.”
They want to fine ICANN? They want to fine the registrars? These two groups have both political and monetary muscle. New York might have been able to pull this off if the bill only went after the individual domainer. But trying to fine registrars—and worse, trying to exert control over ICANN—is a bold and potentially dangerous move. (See my note above about jurisdication. ICANN isn’t located in New York).
The language of S2306 follows:
Introduced by Sens. LITTLE, ALESI, BRUNO, DeFRANCISCO, FARLEY, FUSCHIL-LO, HANNON, LARKIN, LEIBELL, LIBOUS, MALTESE, MARCELLINO, MARCHI, MAZIARZ, MEIER, MORAHAN, PADAVAN, RATH, SALAND, SKELOS, VOLKER, WINNER—read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Consumer Protection
AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to cyber piracy protections and the unlawful registration of domain names
[via http://www.circleid.com/posts/new_york_domain_name_law/ ]
No Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
| TrackBack URI
Like it ? You can bookmark this on del.icio.us, Y! MyWeb 2.0, Netvouz, Furl, Simpy or Spurl.