News and Updates

US Federal Trade Commission Says It Lacks Resources to Go After Privacy Violations Effectively

Domain industry news - Wed, 2019-05-08 23:28

MAY 8, 2019 / FTC Chairman Joseph Simons testifying at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee

At hearing on Wednesday, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged Congress to pass data privacy legislation and enhance its authority to police large tech companies. Some members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce advised that FTC's current enforcement system is not enough to deter big companies from engaging in harmful data privacy practices.

Inconsequential fines are just parking tickets: "For some firms, fines are a parking ticket and a cost of doing business,” says FTC commissioner Rohit Chopra. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida adds: "No CEO is going to blink an eye at a fine that inconsequential. Companies will just see small FTC fines as the cost of doing business and will continue to elevate profits over privacy."

FTC's $5.7 million fine against, also known as TikTok, over alleged Children's Online Privacy Protection Act violations was less than 1% of parent company ByteDance's annual revenue.

Compared to the UK, FTC only has 8% of the staff devoted to privacy: The agency currently has 40 employees focused on privacy cases as compared to 140 at the Irish Data Protection Commission, which oversees Facebook, Twitter and other tech companies' compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and UK has 500 at its Information Commissioner's Office.

Watch the full hearing here.

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Law, Policy & Regulation, Privacy

Categories: News and Updates

Efficient Threat Intelligence: Learning the Secrets

Domain industry news - Wed, 2019-05-08 15:05

How can our threat intelligence platform deliver more?

This is a question many business professionals employing threat intelligence practices are asking themselves as their companies continue to fall short against the machinations of modern-day cybercriminals.

The truth is that while threat intelligence is certainly not a silver bullet, organizations often make a mistake when they opt for a platform without considering several important factors that can help them evaluate the market better and deploy the practice more effectively.

In this post, we'll talk about these criteria and teach you what you should pay attention to in order to make threat intelligence work.

What Important Parameters Should Threat Intelligence Cover?

First things first, to meet today's cybersecurity demands, your threat intelligence platform should be able to return data on certain parameters. These include:

  • IPs and domain names
  • Website analysis
  • SSL certificates
  • Malware detection
  • WHOIS records
  • Mail servers
  • Name servers

Why? Well, having details on each of these points can help professionals see the bigger picture when they evaluate their own vulnerabilities, examine a suspect, or conduct an investigation after an incident. And if you're interested to learn more on what each of these values entails and what data can be retrieved, you can read all about it in our blog post What to Look for in a Threat Intelligence Platform.

Factors to Consider Before Moving Forward

Getting valuable data is only half the job done as there are other important aspects to bear in mind while choosing a threat intelligence platform.

Information vs. intelligence

You see, there's quite a distinction between the two, and you need to know if the threat intelligence platform you're considering focuses on supplying the former or the latter.

Information, which is the output acquired from organized data, is useful in providing answers to certain questions in cybersecurity. On the contrary, intelligence implies information rendering and is applied in more complex situations — ultimately providing a clearer picture of a given situation host.

Quality or quantity

One of the most common concerns when gathering information is having too much of it. Expert analysts can still be overwhelmed with the number of security alerts they go through each day, and this can lower their effectiveness in the long run. On the other hand, a lack of quality data sources can also be a problem for those seeking specific details.

Depending on your current objective, you may want to choose a threat intelligence platform that either specializes in providing processed data along with warnings, recommendations, and reports or the one that enables access to multiple data feeds.


Another thing to keep in mind is that threat intelligence is an ongoing process. The cybersecurity landscape is always evolving with many new threats springing up over time. You may also find that the figures you gathered weeks ago are no longer relevant today.

In order to keep an ear on the ground, it is important to employ a threat intelligence platform that can adjust based on changing data and can be combined with the latest tools and software your company is currently using.

Things to Expect from a Threat Intelligence Platform

Lastly, a suitable threat intelligence platform has many use cases under its belt and offers several possibilities among which:

Easy integration with current systems – merging with existing solutions to expand and accomplish more across workflows.

Immediate incident alerts and reports – compatible with other programs to receive instant notifications in case of a security breach.

Improved trustworthiness – capable of protecting sensitive client information to showcase your cybersecurity potential and reliability as a provider.

* * *

Threat intelligence is one of the pillars to a successful cybersecurity defense. That is why acquiring it while understanding what the market is offering and keeping in mind your objectives will ensure that the solution you've selected will keep your company safe.

Written by Jonathan Zhang, Founder and CEO of Threat Intelligence Platform

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybersecurity

Categories: News and Updates

What domain names Samsung and others bought this week

Domain Name Wire - Wed, 2019-05-08 13:19

Samsung bought a Galaxy domain name and other end user sales.

Samsung bought for its line of Galaxy products. Photo from

Did Samsung learn its lesson after being found guilty of reverse domain name hijacking? This time it bought Galaxy domain rather than trying to get it through a cybersquatting claim.

This week’s end user sales list starts with four country code domain names including an IDN.

Here’s the list of end user sales from the past week. You can view previous lists like this here.

Stü €9,999 – Stühle translates to ‘chairs’ in German. Forwards to, an investment company that supports online projects in various industries or founders of new companies. Did it buy this IDN to launch an ecommerce site selling chairs? €5,355- Forwards to, an online German party superstore with party supplies including balloons, party decor and a full array of costumes. This looks like a defensive registration. $5,300 – The buyer is setting up a Shopify store on the domain. €5,000 – HomeNet Northwest, Inc. is an internet provider. It looks like it’s running under the brand iFiber to provide high speed internet. $5,000 – TuaME (short for The Unique Aesthetic Medicine) is a site about cosmetic surgery. $4,995 – Almaya International Ltd is a conglomerate based in Dubai. €4,800 – This is now an online shop for, you guessed it, Crystals! They feature jewelry and accessories made from minerals and crystals, including pocket stones, pendants and earrings. $3,750 – Qianze is a Chinese asset management companies. $2,800 – I’m guessing this is the same health tech company that recently purchased It owns $2,599 – Samsung bought this domain name. Its popular phone is called Samsung Galaxy. You might recall that Samsung tried reverse domain name hijacking another Galaxy name. Perhaps it learned its lesson. was registered prior to Samsung adopting the brand name. $2,499 – The registrant is the founder of multiple gyms an exercise companies. €2,499 – Forwards to, an Italian brand of cashmere and wool knitwear for both men and women. €2,200 – Top Aire is a manufacturer and retailer of air filled mattress toppers. $2,200 – A coming soon page shows a trademark logo for Alive Body.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. 17 end user domain name sales including Hallmark
  2. 13 end user domain name sales from Sedo
  3. This week’s end user domain name sales
Categories: News and Updates

Sedo Removes Minimum Sales Fee & Lowers Minimum Bid Requirements for the Rest of 2019

DN Journal - Tue, 2019-05-07 23:02
Sedo has just made flipping domains at the lower end of the price spectrum a much less expensive sales strategy.
Categories: News and Updates

Israel’s Airstrike on Hamas Hackers: First Real-Time Physical Retaliation Against Cyberattack

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-05-07 20:55

Amid escalating violence between Israel and Gaza this weekend, the Israeli Defense Force claimed it bombed and partially destroyed the base of an active Hamas hacking group in Gaza. The incident has been particularly noteworthy among cybersecurity professionals. Wired's Lily Hay Newman writes: "The assault seems to be the first true example of a physical attack being used as a real-time response to digital aggression—another evolution of so-called "hybrid warfare." That makes it a landmark moment, but one that analysts caution must be viewed in the context of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, rather than as a standalone global harbinger."

Why a first: Although physical retaliations have occurred against cyberattacks in the past including in Estonia, Georgia and US 2015 airstrike to assassinate Islamic state hacker Junaid Hussain, these were all planned events plotted out over several months, notes Newman. Israel's weekend attack was a real-time response to the alleged base of an active Hamas hacking group.

Expecting more: Security expert Bruce Schneier says he expects this sort of thing to happen more — "not against major countries, but by larger countries against smaller powers. Cyberattacks are too much of a nation-state equalizer otherwise."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack

Categories: News and Updates

We Will Not Raise Prices Unreasonably, Says .ORG Operator

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-05-07 19:00

The operator of the .ORG top-level domain, Public Interest Registry (PIR), issued a statement assuring its community of registrants that it "not raise prices unreasonably." Also, it has no specific plans for any price increases. The response comes following concerns raised by various groups and individuals concerned about ICANN's removal of price caps in the .ORG Registry Agreement. From the statement: "Under the current .ORG Registry Agreement, Public Interest Registry has had the ability to annually raise prices 10% per year. Despite that ability, we have not raised our prices for the last three years. ... If there are any sensible future price increases, obviously no proceeds would go towards bolstering Public Interest Registry's share price (remember, we are a nonprofit), but instead would fund projects that do good work for the Internet, such as providing a more accessible and more secure Internet around the world."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Names, ICANN, Registry Services

Categories: News and Updates

American Households Estimated to Save Over $30 Billion a Year on Broadband With LEO Satellites

Domain industry news - Tue, 2019-05-07 18:21

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are still in their infancy, but according to one analysis, the technology could save American households more than $30 billion per year by intensifying broadband competition. "LEO technology will offer robust internet access to underserved and rural communities lacking wired, low-latency broadband options," says the BroadbandNow Research team. "The arrival of this emergent technology is likely to drive down monthly internet prices for hundreds of millions of Americans."

Internet to millions: "LEO satellites, such as the constellations planned by Elon Musk’s SpaceX Starlink project and Jeff Bezos’ Project Kuiper, promise to bring low-latency broadband internet to millions of Americans," says BroadbandNow. (See these: Amazon's Orbiting Infrastructure and SpaceX Satellite Internet Project Status Update as well as status reports on other competitors OneWeb and Telesat.)

Low latency: "LEO satellite orbit extremely close to earth, between 99 to 1200 miles versus 22,000 miles of traditional GEO satellites, which means less time to transfer information (lower latency) and a quality of service comparable to wired broadband cable and fiber providers."

Assuming success achieved by Elon Musk’s Starlink alone, 263 million Americans with three or fewer wired broadband providers in their area could collectively save over $14 billion through reduced monthly prices, according to the analysis. "The remainder of Americans with four or more providers could save an additional $4 Billion, pushing the savings to $18 billion. ... If both Starlink and Project Kuiper launch, the savings are likely to be even more dramatic..."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband

Categories: News and Updates

.Inc domain tops 500 registrations

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-05-07 17:25

Expensive domain finds buyers.

The .Inc top level domain name has crossed 500 registrations after getting 237 registrations in the first hour of general availability today.

While this wouldn’t be noteworthy for most top level domain launches, .Inc domains have a wholesale price of $2,000.

Over 270 domains were registered during the trademark sunrise and five additional names were picked up at a higher price during Early Access.

Among the dictionary word registrations so far are,,,, and

Some trademark holders appear to have waited until general availability to get their names.

To learn more about .Inc’s unique model, listen to DNW Podcast #232 with Shayan Rostam.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. .VIP hits 200k registrations, $3.2 million within 5 days
  2. .Co co-founder predicts healthy results for .Health domain name
  3. Radix to generate $12 million revenue in 2017
Categories: News and Updates

Last chance to weigh in on .Biz domain price increases

Domain Name Wire - Tue, 2019-05-07 13:48

Comment period ends next week.

People paid a lot of attention to ICANN’s proposal to remove price caps on .Org domain names. Some paid attention to .info. Now is your last chance to weigh in on ICANN’s proposal to remove price restrictions on .Biz domain names.

If ICANN moves forward with its plans, .Biz registry Neustar will be able to charge whatever it wants for new .biz registrations and renewals. Neustar is currently allowed to increase .biz prices 10% per year, which is a generous amount.

While .biz isn’t as popular as some other legacy top level domains, DomainTools calculates that there are more than two million .biz domains in the zone. Businesses that use .biz domains may be forced to pay higher fees to continue using their domain names.

Switching domain names is extremely expensive. It can have a major impact on a company’s search engine rankings and email services.

The comment deadline is May 14.

There’s also an open comment period for .Asia. .Asia is a sponsored top level domain without price restrictions. However, ICANN proposes making some changes to its
agreement including adding Uniform Rapid Suspension.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. .Biz may lose price caps, too
  2. Time is running out to reject unlimited .Org (and other) prices
  3. ICANN to Neustar: Yes, You Can Own a Registrar
Categories: News and Updates

ICANN books another Spring Break in Cancun

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-05-06 20:46

Domain name non-profit decides to party in Cancun for two Spring Breaks in a row.

Pictured: an advanced photo from an ICANN meeting in Cancun.

ICANN has named the locations of two more of its meetings taking place in 2021.

Apparently getting a two-for-one deal, the domain name overseer has booked another Spring Break in Cancun, Mexico. It’s already going to Cancun for its March 2020 meeting. Now it will return March 20-25, 2021 for ICANN 70.

The organization also selected The Hague, Netherlands for ICANN 71. That will take place June 17-17, 2021.

It previously announced that the annual general meeting (ICANN72) will be in Seattle in October 2021.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Google Duped Us
  2. Donuts sues ICANN over .web domain
  3. Donuts demands $22.5 million for .Web domain name
Categories: News and Updates

Sun Valley ski resort loses silly cybersquatting dispute

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-05-06 15:58

Resort’s owner doesn’t withdraw case after it’s clear that it will lose.

Not an accounting technology company.

Let’s say you’re the lawyer for an oil company that also owns ski resorts. One of those ski resorts is called Sun Valley.

You notice that someone registers the domain name (with an ‘m’ rather than an ‘n’). This might pop up on your radar as potential typosquatting. You visit the website and see that there’s a Wix placeholder on the domain name.

Now, you recognize that typosquatters don’t usually pay Wix to host a website. But you’re still concerned so you file a cybersquatting claim under UDRP with National Arbitration Forum.

The domain owner responds. It’s a husband and wife in Texas who have never skied. It turns out they are setting up an accounting/fintech business. They thought Sum Valley was a neat play on accounting and Silicon Valley. They registered the business with the Texas Secretary of State, got a federal tax ID from the IRS, opened a bank account and started invoicing customers.

At this point you drop the dispute, right?

Not Sinclair Finance Company, the arm behind oil company Sinclair that also manages its investments like Sun Valley ski resort in Idaho.

In fact, you double down by questioning why there’s no active website on the domain and say that it is reasonable to infer that the Texas couple registered the domain name with an ulterior motive, such as to disrupt Complainant’s ski business.

Sinclair obviously lost the case. If you can excuse it for filing the case, you can still question why it didn’t withdraw the dispute when it received additional facts.

The lawyer who represented Sinclar, J. Dustin Howell of Workman Nydegger, has previously filed two reverse domain name hijacking cases.


© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Saved in Arbitration, But Who’s This Lazy Panelist?
  2. MyBizHomepage is Confusingly Similar to MyBizOffice? Really?
  3. UDRP panel gets decision wrong
Categories: News and Updates

Domain investing with Logan Flatt- DNW Podcast #235

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-05-06 15:30

A detailed look at one domain investor’s results.

This week you’ll hear a first-hand account of what it’s like being a domain investor. Logan Flatt shares his actual results from the past two years including sales, revenue and expenses. Learn why he focuses on particular topics, how much he typically pays for domains, how he markets them for sale, the tests he runs to optimize his sales and more.

This week’s sponsor: DNAcademy. Use code DNW for $50 off.

Subscribe via iTunes to listen to the Domain Name Wire podcast on your iPhone or iPad, view on Google Play Music, or click play above or download to begin listening. (Listen to previous podcasts here.)

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Domain investing with Shane Cultra – DNW Podcast #164
  2. 2019 Predictions – DNW Podcast #218
  3. Rick Schwartz – DNW Podcast #225
Categories: News and Updates

Sedo lowers minimum offer to $20, nixes min commissions

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-05-06 14:21

Changes should add liquidity to domain market.

Sedo is making two big changes to its domain name marketplace. It’s a trial in place until the end of the year for now.

First, it is lowering its minimum bid from $90 to $20. If you complained about receiving $90 offers in the past, then you might want to set up a custom minimum bid for your domains. You can do this through the online system or contact your account rep to make this change.

Second, it is removing the $60 minimum commission on most domain names. (It calls these “Category 1” domains.)

This should add liquidity to the low end of the market. It didn’t make sense to sell a domain for $90 if you only netted $30.

Afternic previously lowered its minimum offer to $20. It charges a $15 minimum commission.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. Report: How to Sell Domain Names on Marketplaces
  2. Goes for $725,000, But When Did it Sell?
  3. 15 domain names sell in .Club auction
Categories: News and Updates & Added to Unprecedented Big City Geodomain Portfolio Sale

DN Journal - Mon, 2019-05-06 13:24
The remarkable portfolio of 20 big city .com geodomains that Geocentric Media put on the market last month has gotten even more amazing.
Categories: News and Updates, among top auction sales

Domain Name Wire - Mon, 2019-05-06 13:16

SnapNames lands some whales.’s domain name auction platforms NameJet and SnapNames combined to sell 97 domains at $2,000 or more last month, totaling $566,000.

SnapNames led the way with the sale of for $60,400. But here are the domains that jump out at me:

  • $37,100 – It’s the nickname for California. When most people hear this term they think of the Golden State Warriors basketball team. NameJet.
  • $20,900 – A big political domain that could sell for much more to a conservative publication. I own and frequently get inquiries on it. is obviously much bigger. SnapNames.
  • $10,500 – If restaurant reservation site didn’t pick up this domain, it really missed out. NameJet.
  • $6,601 – A limited pool of buyers but they have big pockets. NameJet.
  • – I wish I would have noticed this auction. NameJet.
Domain NameSale PricePlatform 9j.com60400SnapNames goldenstate.com37100NameJet kihls.com30614NameJet woolwarehouse.com29888NameJet rightwing.com20900SnapNames zhongce.com20400SnapNames onebank.com17856NameJet smartick.com15856NameJet uxv.com12500NameJet vestidos.com11488NameJet rezy.com10500NameJet aspx.com9750SnapNames collegeportraits.org9400NameJet sanbruno.com9222NameJet zgroup.com8608NameJet bdsy.com7300NameJet streetmaps.com6601NameJet aghg.com5980NameJet mortgageservices.com5766NameJet paida.com5719NameJet trendspotting.com5301NameJet continente.com5288SnapNames eyeview.com5177NameJet flattery.com5022NameJet asrv.com4655NameJet hedef.com4610NameJet suv.org4600NameJet womenactionmedia.org4600NameJet cavemen.com4540NameJet painmedicine.com4488NameJet complaints.org4400NameJet onroute.com4200NameJet redefiningpower.com4188SnapNames netter.com4089NameJet delfina.com3911NameJet comments.org3875NameJet propertyadvisors.com3755SnapNames sabana.com3736NameJet oomm.com3700NameJet petaware.com3695SnapNames nextjet.com3655SnapNames shetty.com3517NameJet sis.org3422NameJet premiercapital.com3279NameJet achoo.com3200NameJet jiaoyisuo.com3200SnapNames omusic.com3100NameJet compassroserealty.com2995SnapNames mangels.com2956SnapNames 96158.com2942NameJet verbania.com2909NameJet landmanagement.com2889NameJet insureamerica.com2800NameJet foodbag.com2711NameJet mosfet.com2710NameJet actualized.com2700NameJet popgun.com2700NameJet spxpo.com2695NameJet rennen.com2655NameJet globalauto.com2645NameJet btube.com2605NameJet w6w.com2510NameJet 68005.com2500NameJet befamous.com2500NameJet jetengines.com2480NameJet 2-8.com2453NameJet axishealth.com2441NameJet itmarketing.com2433NameJet redcrane.com2427NameJet tu3.com2414NameJet luxurydestinations.com2400NameJet animalauthority.com2395SnapNames creditclean.com2350NameJet y-g.com2334NameJet prun.com2272SnapNames bestskin.com2250NameJet portatil.com2213NameJet 82520.com2200NameJet chicago.info2200NameJet purecoffee.com2200NameJet seedsmart.com2200NameJet techgo.com2110NameJet 67005.com2100NameJet 78728.com2100NameJet focusdata.com2100NameJet opinions.org2100NameJet privacyjournal.net2100NameJet firstcrush.com2089NameJet unec.com2051NameJet pixology.com2021NameJet sockstore.com2016NameJet 23005.com2000NameJet 52113.com2000NameJet 58922.com2000NameJet 62993.com2000NameJet 87119.com2000NameJet 89116.com2000NameJet

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. NamesCon auction lifts sales in February
  2. aftermarket sales up to $45k
  3. 21 domain names to buy this week
Categories: News and Updates

Understanding 5G: A Basic Primer

Domain industry news - Sun, 2019-05-05 18:56

The initial, essential step toward understanding 5G is to perform an intellectual body purge of the endless disgorging of cluelessness and disinformation that emerges from the Washington White House and radiates out around that city and then to the outside world that it infects. The institutes, pundits, self-professed experts, summits, and even the U.S. press all pretty much feed out of the same trough of 5G political slop that gets passed around as incantations of ignorance, spin, and K-street lobbying.

The next essential step is the difficult one. Unfortunately, it requires the hard work and a knowledge base obtained from following and analyzing the only authoritative collective sources of 5G information — and that is the multiple global industry bodies where hundreds of technical experts constantly collaborate at diverse locations contributing thousands of input documents per month developing and specifying in great detail, the architectures, services, interfaces, radio links, and capabilities that constitute 5G. These bodies have been working on this effort for the past five years, and publish the resulting documents in a series of releases that resemble computer operating system versions. Release 16 — which is true 5G SA with network core virtualization (as opposed to transitional precursors) — is being accomplished this year. Subsequent releases promise ever more advanced applications and features. The bottom line: 5G is a constantly evolving continuum.

These bodies are usually layered and have endless strings of acronyms like the 3GPP (SA, CT, RAN) core, which is then surrounded by NFV ISG, MEC ISG, ETSI TCs, MEF, ITU-R, ITU-T, OASIS, TCG, IETF, OMA, GSMA, IEEE802. You can search on the acronyms for meanings, access portals, meetings, participants, and input and output materials. Additionally, large swaths of 5G work never make it into the global industry fora, and only appear in patent filings, research literature, and product announcements that require continuous monitoring and assessment. Given the enormous complexity and continuously evolving technical and institutional complexities spread across all these venues, anything approaching a complete understanding is not possible. All 5G knowledge is an approximation at a point in time.

Principal 5G features

A number of basic features can be distilled out of the enormous swirling 5G maelstrom that go far beyond the focus on political trivializations, lobbying, trolling for spectrum, and marketing in the popular press. These features represent a tectonic change far exceeding anything seen in the history of electronic communications - in the way networks and services are instantiated and provided.

  • Virtualization of everything from data centres and local Mobile Edge Computing facilities
  • Partitioned architectures & services on demand transparently across all media using network slicing
  • Shifting away from DARPA internet protocols to low-latency Virtual Carrier Ethernet
  • Prolific ephemeral encryption
  • High-speed mobility support combined with constant dynamic portability to mobile platforms and IOT
  • Commoditized hardware and orchestration of everything else
  • Ubiquitous, high bandwidth radio access capabilities
  • Shift to global "content distribution networks" on demand where discoverable endpoint and traffic intelligence become highly valuable
  • Intelligence shifts from endpoints to middleboxes and data centres
  • Trusted platforms, middlebox based traffic analysis, and auditing become security essentials

Explaining these features and conclusions are beyond the scope of a basic primer, but readers can do their own homework using authoritative source materials.

Threaded through this array of capabilities is a need for security that is best summed up as constant "cyber hygiene" representing a virtualization reapplication of today's 20 CIS Critical Security Controls. Unilateral actions undermining public international law like banning a vendor's hardware because of its place of incorporation are not only unlawful but utterly delusional and counterproductive toward addressing the necessary capabilities. The 5G security capabilities have for several years been developed and evolved continuously in global industry bodies.

The problem here is that understanding all of the above requires a comprehensive level of knowledge and available resources to distill from a broad array of activities — and those resources only exist in a few companies and institutions. As a result, the purveyors of jingoistic 5G snake oil political analysis are left to pursue their trade. Simplistic portrayals of 5G are low-hanging fruit for a world challenged by understanding even the basics of how a smartphone works.

Emerging 5G markets, strategies, and participants

There are arguably four classes of winners in the 5G world. In the near term, they include a few companies and their component suppliers who can exist in the global 5G mass commodity physical "box" game that has a finite market period and extends into developing countries. Their success is synergistic and important to the derivative markets. The three additional, larger, persistent, and even more lucrative market winners in this massive tectonic shift to a tailored, on-demand, content delivery global architecture, are: 1) those who provide the low latency, trusted network slice orchestrations out of cloud data centre/MEC facilities and middleboxes, 2) those who collect and maintain the mobile endpoint identifiers and intelligence to provide resolver services, and 3) those who can maintain and provide content for specific classes of customers.

The providers who fall into all of the above categories are very actively engaged in the real 5G/NFV work. They encompass product vendors and service providers at multiple levels across the globe — in many instances, orchestrating different subsidiaries across multiple countries. Some industry consortiums in the cable, railway, and automobile fields have become prominent. The metrics of the huge commitments of personnel and contributions of intellectual property in submissions are available in all the venues. In the 5G security arena, by any metric, there is only one clear global leader — the UK's National Cyber Security Centre.

Principal 5G Challenges

Although the challenges are certain to evolve over time, those that are obvious at this point fall into three categories: 1) effective, inclusive global arrangements for extraterritorial orchestrations of 5G architectures and services including access to forensics, 2) concentration of 5G orchestration, resolver and end-point intelligence services in the hands of a few commercial providers, and 3) an inability of government institutions to understand the previous two challenges and their own strategic interests. The last challenge is largely resident in only one nation at the moment.

The first challenge can be potentially satisfied by further extending the many global intergovernmental arrangements developed a century ago for the first global radio-based networks and a quarter-century ago for public internets. To the extent solutions cannot be found, costs will simply be driven up and market access limited by building more national-based facilities that operate within a confined jurisdiction. The second challenge is similar to the first with complex antitrust, privacy, law enforcement, and national security overlays. Nations will similarly insist on geographic jurisdictional compartmentalization. The third challenge will hopefully be solved in the near future.

Written by Anthony Rutkowski, Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Mobile Internet, Policy & Regulation, Wireless

Categories: News and Updates

ESPN takes down “ESPN Slaughter” website

Domain Name Wire - Sat, 2019-05-04 15:50

Army vet set up site to criticize spending on football.

An Army vet set up ESPN Slaughter to provide commentary on spending on football.

Sports network ESPN has convinced a National Arbitration Forum panel to give it the domain name

The domain name was used by a U.S. Army veteran for commentary about the National Football League.

With a name like ESPNSlaughter, you might think it had to do with the damage football causes to players’ brains. But Andrew Shulte has a different gripe: he thinks the money that goes to build stadiums and pay players could be put to better use helping society.

Schulte is a self-professed football fan but suggests a one-year NFL timeout to put money toward other causes. Of course, the NFL couldn’t pay those salaries if it didn’t play for a year, but that’s another story. mimicked an ESPN site and even had a notice “Brought to you by ESPN Media a Disney Co.”

National Arbitration Forum panelist Richard Hill found in the sports network’s favor, ruling that the domain name should be transferred.

Criticism sites are somewhat immune to cybersquatting claims but the site owner wasn’t directly attacking ESPN. He also didn’t respond to the claims.

© 2019. This is copyrighted content. Domain Name Wire full-text RSS feeds are made available for personal use only, and may not be published on any site without permission. If you see this message on a website, contact copyright (at) Latest domain news at Domain Name Wire.

Related posts:
  1. domain handed over in UDRP
  2. The UDRP has a lot of open questions
  3. why no reverse domain name hijacking?
Categories: News and Updates

NamesCon Europe Releases New Information on the Event Coming to Portugal in June

DN Journal - Fri, 2019-05-03 22:02
The 11th annual edition of NamesCon Europe (formerly Domaining Europe) is coming up in June. A preliminary agenda and more show details are now available.
Categories: News and Updates

UDRP Complaint: Actually, a Motion for Summary Judgment

Domain industry news - Fri, 2019-05-03 21:25

This essay expands a talk presented at the 27th Fordham International IP Conference on April 26, 2019.

Trademark owners (and here I'm talking about those with U.S. registrations even if they are foreign entities) have a choice of forum for challenging alleged cybersquatting domain names. They can either sue in district court under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection (ACPA), or get a quicker and less expensive result by filing a complaint and asserting a claim under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). But to get to a quicker and less expensive result everything about the process is accelerated, and this begins with drafting the complaint.

Those who litigate for a living know that complaints filed in courts of competent jurisdiction essentially put adversaries on notice of an alleged claim. It does not have to include evidence for the claim, although allegation must be drafted carefully to avoid dismissal for an insufficient factual foundation for the relief. To take one recent example under the ACPA, Emerson Elec. Co. v. Emerson Quiet Kool Co., C.A. No. 17-1846-LPS (D. Del., 2019) (<>) the court dismissed the complaint but granted permission to amend it. Absent factual allegations that support a "reasonable inference" of bad faith intent the claim is vulnerable to dismissal. In the Court's words

[Plaintiff claims that] Defendants registered the Infringing Domain Name with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill Emerson Electric has developed in the EMERSON Marks ... However, Plaintiff's allegation is merely a conclusory, speculative, bald assertion, lacking any "factual content" to support a "reasonable inference" of bad faith intent.

Emerson's experience could very well have been replicated under the UDRP, except that under the UDRP the mark owner would not have been invited to amend the deficient complaint. For trademark owners and their representatives, this point should be burned into their minds.

What is unusual about the UDRP, and this is what I want to bring to your attention is that there is imposed at the pleading stage of this administrative process a demand that the parties include proof (not simply allege the right factual predicates for the requested relief). It is critical to the point that if a proof is omitted, the complaint is incurable since there is no second chance under the UDRP as there is in court. This is aptly illustrated in v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC ( / Luciana Gomes, D2019-0264 (WIPO March 20, 2019). The complainant failed because it "has alleged no facts (and provided no evidentiary basis) on which the Panel could conclude that Respondent targeted Complainant's WIX mark [with <>] and used it in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy."

Unless complainant can marshal sufficient evidence of cybersquatting to support its contentions its claim will be denied, and its complaint dismissed. No legal theory awards relief to the trademark owner for having a registered or unregistered mark without proof that the domain name was acquired in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The point is made in Dr. Muscle v. Michael Krell, FA1903001833036 (Forum April 19, 2019) (<>). Even if Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, there is no proof of bad faith use.

Instead of labeling the initiating pleading in a UDRP proceeding as a complaint, it would be more correct to call it a motion for summary judgment. If we think about the pleading in this way, we will immediately apprehend that a bare complaint will never do.

Yet, surprisingly, there is a small but steady number of cases in which parties or their representatives lose their claims for want of understanding the requirements of the UDRP. Generally, proof is easier with the well-known and famous, but as marks decline in composition to dictionary words and descriptive phrases, the burden grows heavier. The reason for this is that dictionary words used as trademarks do not lose their common function as dictionary words, and as such are capable of multiple associations unconnected with any particular mark. Whatever reputation a mark may have in the present is not probative of its reputation at the time of the registration of the domain name. In Brooksburnett Investments Ltd. v. Domain Admin / Schmitt Sebastien, D2019-0455 (WIPO April 16, 2019) (<>) the Panel noted

The fact that the complainant now holds numerous trademarks in many countries does not mean that the Complainant's INCANTO mark is necessarily "world-famous," much less that it was "recognized throughout the world" at the relevant time, 16 years ago, when the Respondent registered the Domain Name.

Although trademark owners have a quicker and less expensive route to having domain names canceled or transferred under the UDRP, their claims must be properly presented. Quicker translates to the difference between forty days for a UDRP decision and one or more years for a Court decision. In several recent ACPA actions, just as an alert to owners thinking of going that route, owners have endured at least a year for a decision, In Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. Tinsley (E.D. Mich., March 2019) (involving legacy TLDs, cybersquatting and trademark infringement) Plaintiff got its injunctive relief for the domain names, however, the cost for getting that result would likely have been significantly greater than the benefits. The domain names could have been silenced more quickly with less cost under the UDRP or (for new gTLDs) the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) (a rights protection mechanism that delivers an even more rapid injunctive takedown for domain names in the new gTLD spaces). If trademark infringement is really an issue, it can be prosecuted separately after suspending, canceling, or transferring the domain nameS.

However, moving for summary judgment calls for a more deliberative approach to pleadings. There must be allegations supported by sufficient concrete evidence, and it must be argued and presented properly.

What I mean by "presented properly" is that trademark owners must include as part of their pleadings persuasive evidence of cybersquatting. The question, then, is what must trademark owners do? The UDRP has a simple three-part structure. There is a choice of two remedies, either cancellation of registration or transfer of the domain name to complainant. The UDRP does not authorize awards of attorney's fees or damages. For that, mark owners have to go to district court.

Complainants must prove its contentions by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

  1. It has standing to maintain the proceeding;
  2. Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the domain names; and
  3. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

The third requirement is called a conjunctive model of liability. Unless both elements are alleged and proved, the complaint must be dismissed. The ACPA, in contrast, is a disjunctive model. If there is proof that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith (after having registered it in good faith) the domain name will be forfeited to trademark owner or its registration canceled).

The elements and factors in each of the three limbs are:

For the first limb there are two elements:

  1. that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. If the domain name is similar but not confusing the complainant has no standing to maintain the proceeding; and
  2. that the complainant has rights. The rights can be either registered or unregistered, but if the rights are unregistered or there is an application pending complainant must prove the mark had acquired secondary meaning before the domain name was registered. Otherwise, it does not have standing. An example is Air Serv International, Inc. v. Stu Willcuts, FA1902001831670 (Forum March 31, 2019) Complainant argued that <> was confusingly similar to Complainant's <> domain name, but failed to offer any evidence that it had a mark. Respondent did not appear.
    1. The point of standing is underscored in Caleb Marshall v. c/o Weebly Domains, FA1901001826454 (Forum March 4 2019) (<>. "Mere registration of a domain name without more does not establish common law rights.")
    2. If the complainant has registered rights that accrued subsequent to the registration of the domain name, there is the anomaly of complainant having standing to maintain the proceedings but no actionable claim or remedy. The point is underscored in Mobisy Technologies Private Limited v. Ibrahim Kazanci, D2019-0273 (WIPO March 6, 2019) (. "At the time the Domain Name was registered, there simply was no BIZOM mark out there to target or infringe.")

For the second limb

Complainant succeeds by making an unrebutted prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. It does this by alleging the following presumptive facts that are open to rebuttal:

  1. Respondent is not using the domain name to make any bona fide offering of goods or services. Rebuttals include OVERSEAS CORP. v. NameTrust, LLC. CAC 102207 (ADReu February 22, 2019) (<>. '[T]he evidence on record indicates that it is more likely than not that the domain name was registered in light of its dictionary meaning, for use in connection with the Respondent's link-shortening services forming part of the Respondent's domain name portfolio.");
  2. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; and
  3. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. If the domain name resolves to an active website, complainant must submit screenshots of the website. In Bialetti Industrie S.p.A. v. Gary Valenti Inc., D2019-0190 (WIPO March 25, 2019) (. "The Complainant had to go back 18 years to find a single example of alleged appearance of a non-Bialetti product on the Respondent's website.")

If Complainant succeeds on its prima facie showing, the burden shifts to Respondent to rebut the presumptive evidence. There are three nonexclusive affirmative defenses (mirror images of the prima facie case, the positive rather than the negative):

  1. respondent is using the domain name to offer bona fide goods or services; or
  2. it has been commonly known by the domain name since prior to its acquisition; or
  3. it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

If Respondent successfully rebuts the prima facie case, the complaint must be dismissed. If Respondent fails to rebut or defaults, complainant succeeds and moves on to the third limb.

For the third limb there are four nonexclusive circumstances of bad faith.

They are:

  1. Respondent is offering the domain name for sale to complainant or its competitors; or
  2. Respondent acquired the domain name in order to prevent complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name; or
  3. Respondent is a competitor who has registered the domain to disrupt Complainant's business; or
  4. Respondent is using the domain name intentionally for the purposes of commercial gain to attract Internet users to its website.

Proof of conjunctive bad faith is generally supported by the strength of the mark, the hyperlinks on the website, the plausibility of any claim of good faith, and the conceivability that the domain name can be used without infringing Complainant's rights.

The first factor is easily met. It is bad faith 1) if the Respondent solicits complainant to purchase the domain name (but not the other way around!); or 2) the website is populated with links to Complainant's businesses competitors. It is not bad faith 1) to respond to a Complainant's inquiry about the price of the domain name; or 2) populate the website with links consistent with the semantic meaning of the word or words.

The second factor is satisfied if there is evidence that Respondent's primary purpose in acquiring the domain name was related to its value as a mark rather than to its ordinary meaning.

The third element is satisfied if Respondent is a competitor and there is no justification for registering the domain name. An illustration is Toner Connect, L.L.C. v. Privacy Protect, LLC / Realogue Corporation, D2018-2829 (WIPO February 21, 2019) (<>).

The fourth factor is satisfied if Respondent's use of the domain name raises a likelihood of confusion with the consuming public. The stronger the mark the greater the likelihood that the registration of the domain name was intended to target it; the weaker the mark and its composition of dictionary words (examples "incanto" and "Dr. Muscle,", the likelier the complaint will be denied.

Even though in Dr. Muscle, supra, Respondent did not actually conduct any trademark or social media search at the time of registration, the fact the domain name is composed of common terms is dispositive:

One fact that does give the Panel some pause is that Respondent, as a domain name speculator, does have some obligation under Paragraph 2 of the Policy to ensure that his domain name does not infringe or violate a third party's rights. Respondent submitted evidence purporting to prove what a Google search in December 2018 might have shown; as discussed above, complainant persuasively refutes the accuracy of those searches. What Respondent does not say is that Respondent actually did such searches, or took any steps to meet his obligations under Paragraph 2.

That's a very brief overview of what I'm calling the evidentiary demands, which I think are significant. These observations are intended as cautionary warnings to complainants that if they fail to recognize the UDRP demands proof on the same scale required for a summary judgment motion, they will lose.

Written by Gerald M. Levine, Intellectual Property, Arbitrator/Mediator at Levine Samuel LLP

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Management, Domain Names, Intellectual Property, Law

Categories: News and Updates

Representatives From EU, NATO, USA, Japan, Australia Hold Meeting on 5G Security and Policy Measures

Domain industry news - Fri, 2019-05-03 19:39

MAY 2, 2019 / Prague 5G Security Conference held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Representatives from over 30 countries including nations from European Union, NATO, United States, Germany, Japan, Israel and Australia participated in the Prague 5G Security Conference this week to discuss practices that could form a coordinated approach to shared security and policy measures. Neither China nor Russia were invited to the event. There were no agreements reached on any formal binding document, but participants are eager to continue discussions.

Keep the big picture in mind advised U.S. FCC chair Ajit Pai in day one remarks: "Decisions that impact 5G security need to be made with the long term in mind. Focusing too heavily on short-term considerations could result in choices that are pennywise but pound foolish."

Huawei concerns: "Some western countries’ concerns about Huawei center on China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law, stating that Chinese 'organizations and citizens shall, in accordance with the law, support, cooperate with, and collaborate in national intelligence work." (Reuters)

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Mobile Internet, Policy & Regulation, Wireless

Categories: News and Updates

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer