As a Domainer, Will You Put a NameBlock Block on Your Names?

[bhartzer]

NameBlock is launching soon (expected in the next month or so). NameBlock will allow you to pay to place a block on a series of characters (such as your product name, brand, company name, etc.).

You'll be able to place that block so no one can register a domain that contains those characters, and a ton of common variations. For example, if PayPal would put a block on PayPal, then domains like PayPa1.com, PayPa1.net, etc. couldn't be registered. They'll show up as being not available to register.

You don't have to have a trademark to put a NameBlock on. But you'll pay annually for the block.

As a domainer, are you planning on putting block on your more valuable names?

 

[bhartzer]

Re identifying, this is exactly what FarSight Security (acquired by DomainTools) is already offering with their Newly Observed Hostnames (NOH) offering.

https://www.farsightsecurity.com/solutions/threat-intelligence-team/newly-observed-hostnames/

https://www.domaintools.com/resourc...on-exchange-sie-newly-observed-hostnames-noh/

Farsight offers "after the fact" identification of "newly observed" (newly registered) host names. I see that as a monitoring service.

NameBlock offers a domain BLOCKING service, whereas the 'hostname' will be blocked BEFORE it's even registered.

Two completely different services.

 

[Future Sensors]

Farsight offers "after the fact" identification of "newly observed" (newly registered) host names. I see that as a monitoring service.

NameBlock offers a domain BLOCKING service, whereas the 'hostname' will be blocked BEFORE it's even registered.

Two completely different services.

That's what I said, I said "Re identifying". It was a reply to Bob's posting where he said "I have no problem with them offering software to help registrars and registries identify confusingly similar names"

What's your point?

 

[Bob Hawkes]

I think there's a charge to remove a block, not a charge to appeal a block. But I could be wrong.

Sorry my wording was confusing. That is what I meant. A charge to request to remove a block that has been placed.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Probably irrelevant, but the term NameBlock was way more popular, in books at least, around 1940. I presume that has something to do with army blocks and World War 2? Or maybe military intelligence?

 

[Future Sensors]

Probably irrelevant, but the term NameBlock was way more popular, in books at least, around 1940. I presume that has something to do with army blocks and World War 2? Or maybe military intelligence?

Show attachment 245081

Probably it was used in another context.

https://www.historical.waseca.mn.us/collection/artifacts?i=36513

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Interestingly, it does not appear there is a TM or application on NameBlock. There are some with the reverse BlockName, mainly blockchain related.

Also interesting how few TLDs (just 6, one of which is a 'free' extension) it is registered in.

I would have thought such an obvious word combination would have been more registered, even unrelated to the organization.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Probably it was used in another context.

That makes total sense. I had not even thought about the rise in retail and nameblocks as the signs with their company name. Thanks for solving the question!

-Bob

 

[Bob Hawkes]

So at least a couple of the principals involved with pushing NameBlock forward appear to be highly involved with registries.

Surely that is a conflict of interest unless the relationship is guaranteed to be hands off?

Since otherwise, a decision about blocked and allowed registrations in competing registry TLDs could be decided by a company that is under ownership by those who direct a different registry.

And NameBlock sets up a whole different setup to apply to remove a block. A panel, sort of like UDRP, but different. But the real difference is these panels are set up by a for-profit company that is lead by those who also have interests in registries.

I see potential conflict of interest. If it is not so, let them provide the transparency and clarity to convince me and others.

-Bob

 

[pb]

Let's say you own Keyword1(.com) and you have a block on Keyword1. Then no one can register anything with 'keyword1' in it, so they'll end up seeing that keyword1(.com) is for sale, which is their only option.

Nice, let's see how it works if Elon buys a nameblock for X.

 

[Future Sensors]

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rsep-2023032-bond-et-al-request-24jul23-en.pdf

 

[Joe Styler]

So if I own the block - I am paying for it, can I still register that keyword or am I blocked too?

 

[bhartzer]

So if I own the block - I am paying for it, can I still register that keyword or am I blocked too?

That's a good question, Joe.

I am assuming that you would be able to register the domain.
If that's not the case, you could probably remove the block, register it, then put the block back on?

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Thanks for the table, @Future Sensors . So am I reading it correctly that the only registries that have applied for NameBlock yet, at least if ICANN table up to date, are those associated with ShortDot, whose co-owner is one of the main proponents of NameBlock it appears?

Also, the application is to replace the ShortBlock, that they already have, with NameBlock, which accesses a wider array of abuse metrics from a company owned by another of the proponents of NameBlock. But it applies only to registrations within ShortDot (.icu, .cfd, .bond, etc.)

 

[mixing]

Wouldn't you need all registrars/registries to be involved for this to actually work? For example, if some registrar our there isn't a part of it..I can just go there and register the name. If a registry isn't part of it, I can just go and register it in that extension. As others have said, this type of thing has abuse written all over it. On top of that, you won't get all registrars and registries to participate, so there will be someplace people can go to register the name whether NameBlock has a block on it or not... Maybe I'm missing something here?

 

[Future Sensors]

Thanks for the table, @Future Sensors . So am I reading it correctly that the only registries that have applied for NameBlock yet, at least if ICANN table up to date, are those associated with ShortDot, whose co-owner is one of the main proponents of NameBlock it appears?

I think you're right, yes. Given the rather unpopular extensions, it doesn't seem like a threat at the moment, but this should certainly not set a precedent for other TLDs.

 

[Future Sensors]

I want to thank Bill Hartzer. By starting this thread we can prevent this NameBlock service from expanding to other TLDs.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

Isn't this almost exactly the same as TrueName, that Donuts offered years ago, as Andrew explained it in 2020:

When a customer registers a Donuts TLD such as .guru, .money or .live, Donuts will block registrations of lookalike domain names that substitute letters or numbers with characters from Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic script tables for the purpose of malicious activity.

The one difference is that Donuts (now Identity Digital) offered it automatically without an additional cost, and for the lifetime of your registration of that name.

I don't much care personally if NameBlock is used to block registrations of similar names at ShortDot registries, it could even be a good idea. If the only ICANN approval is the one noted above, just for ShortDot to use on its own registry names, it is not like NameBlock is approved by ICANN in some industry wide manner.

-Bob

 

[bhartzer]

Wouldn't you need all registrars/registries to be involved for this to actually work? For example, if some registrar our there isn't a part of it..I can just go there and register the name. If a registry isn't part of it, I can just go and register it in that extension. As others have said, this type of thing has abuse written all over it. On top of that, you won't get all registrars and registries to participate, so there will be someplace people can go to register the name whether NameBlock has a block on it or not... Maybe I'm missing something here?

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think you need ALL registries to sign on, you just need the most popular ones to sign on and accept it. It can be successful without ALL registries signing on.

The pricing of many TLDs is prohibiting a lot of domain squatting and phishing, etc. that NameBlock is designed to protect. Domain squatters and people doing phishing aren't going to spend $1,000 or even $500 per year on a domain.

 

[Future Sensors]

you just need the most popular ones to sign on and accept it

Strongly disagree. This should never happen.

 

[alcy]

u gotta be seriously desperate to come up ideas like this

 

[bhartzer]

Strongly disagree. This should never happen.

Maybe it "should never happen", true.

But we can wish all we want that it shouldn't happen--but most likely Verisign and the most popular registries have already signed on an accepted NameBlock. So we have to accept that it's going forward and have to deal with it as domainers and domain owners.

It was already 'launched' about a year ago.

 

[Bob Hawkes]

but most likely Verisign and the most popular registries have already signed on an accepted NameBlock.

Why do you say that? I have yet to see in anything beyond this thread that it has been approved by anything other than the registries controlled by one of the main proponents of the system.

 

[korganian]

IMHO this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of being promoted as an accepted fact encompassing the entire domain infrastructure.

Are you trying to make us believe that Anyone can pay a fee and block any domain with the word "bill" in it and block every person named Bill from registering any domain with their name in it? Not to mention every company in the billing industry from registering any domain for their business with the words bill, bills, or billing?

 

[Bob Hawkes]

So if I own the block - I am paying for it, can I still register that keyword or am I blocked too?

I think this answers your question, Joe. So yes, an override is possible. But yet another fee for that.

Can I use any of the domains included in my block?​

Blocked domains cannot per se be used as they are different from a regular domain name registration. However, if you wish to transform one of the blocked domains in order to be able to use it, this is possible via a so-called “override” at an additional fee. Once an override is done, you’ll be able to use the domain name just as you would any other domain name registration.

 

[bhartzer]

IMHO this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of being promoted as an accept fact encompassing the entire domain infrastructure.

Are you trying to make us believe that Anyone can pay a fee and block any domain with the word "bill" in it and block every person named Bill from registering any domain with their name in it? Not to mention every company in the billing industry from registering any domain for their business with the words bill, bills, or billing?

Yes, that is the concept or the "use case" so to speak of NameBlock.

But most likely they have a list of words (or sets of characters) that cannot be blocked. I'm guessing it's probably something like a list of dictionary words, something like that.

So you're not very far off of what NameBlock is--but there most likely is a list of names (such as Bill) that could not be blocked. I don't think they will publish that list. Registries also have a list of "reserved names" so to speak, and those names aren't published.