Fresh York Domain Name Bill to Become Law
Law creates a civil penalty for registering person’s name with intent to sell it to them.
In May 2006, Reglike noted that Fresh York state senator Betty Little, R-Queensbury, was working on a bill to make cybersquatting on a person’s name illegal in the state (see Fresh York wants to regulate domain names). The bill has now become law and will go into effect later this year.
On the surface this isn’t a big deal. Following all, registering a famous person’s name will likely land you on the losing end of a UDRP. Also, the bill hasn’t kept up with the times. It has a penalty for registering a person’s name with the intent to sell the domain to that person. It mentions nothing of registering someone’s name and profiting off of pay-per-click revenue. Furthermore, other states have laws similar to this one.
But there are three things I previously pointed out regarding this bill that are worrisome:
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. I can by now 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 Fresh York can pass its own laws, why can’t other states and countries pass their own regulations as well? Fresh 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.â€
I wonder if the bill’s writer knows what a registry is. The biggest registrar that needs to pay attention to this law is Fresh York-based Register.com.
3. The bill is was championed as a way to protect identity theft. Seriously. As stated by a senate press release last year,
“The Fresh York State Senate today approved a number of proposals to combat the growing problem of identity theft, counting 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.â€
(Note: I’m not sure if this provision made it into the final bill. It was a draft when I reviewed it.)
They want to fine ICANN? They want to fine the registrars? These two groups have both political and monetary muscle. Fresh York might have been able to pull this off if the bill only went following 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 regarding jurisdication. ICANN isn’t located in Fresh York).
