<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Fast Flux DNS
- To: <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] WG: [council] Fast Flux DNS
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:40:51 -0400
- Cc: "'Margie Milam'" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <07d201c8824a$9100f910$a400a8c0@blackdell>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <06ec01c87f43$6b563f90$6a01a8c0@cubensis> <02D96C107E1B2445B9CD5065309187C32CCCC0@boiexch1.mm-ads.com> <07d201c8824a$9100f910$a400a8c0@blackdell>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 9, 2008, at 9:03 PM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:
I do want to know about a domain that is
suspected of being used for phishing
Unfortunately, there are a large number of trademark protection
services that are now sending out "suspected phishing alerts" in cases
where simple typosquatting is taking place. Service providers that do
this are making it very difficult to tell the difference between a
suspected criminal action and a suspected civil action. I am aware of
the potential connections between the two, but unfortunately, most of
the "suspected phishing" notices that I've seen so far are essentially
end runs around the UDRP, etc.
By amplifying and exploiting concerns around "phishing", the trademark
community is not doing the anti-crime community any favors and is
making proactive enforcement even more difficult.
-ross
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|