The ICANN Board has just approved the release of new IDN ccTLD domain names, and paving the way for the creation of the controversial .xxx domain names.

The IDN ccTLD domain names approved by ICANN are:

• CNNIC (China Internet Network Information Center)
• HKIRC (Hong Kong Internet Registration Corporation Limited)
• TWNIC (Taiwan Network Information Center).

This announcement comes hot on the heels of the recent release of the Russian and Arabic IDN ccTLD, which we announced with great fanfare.

The contraversial .xxx domain was allowed to pass with ICANN saying:

The ICANN board also voted to allow the application for the controversial .XXX top-level domain (TLD) to move forward. The ICM registry applied for the .XXX sponsored top-level domain as a potential community site for the adult entertainment industry. The Board approved a detailed set of next steps for the application, including expedited due diligence, negotiations on a draft registry agreement, and consultation with ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee.

The .xxx domain was first discussed in 2000 as a dedicated domain for the Adult industry, but fierce debate from supporters and detractors has raged since then. In 2007 the ICANN Board rejected a proposal to progress the .xxx, but in more recent times members of the ICANN board have expressed support for it.

The challenge for brand owners is to take advantage of the sunrise period to protect their brands by registering domain names within the new extensions.

By BusinessLaw.com.au

The Federal Court has issued a fine of $15.75 Million against spammers found guilty of using an elaborate scheme to deceptively obtain mobile phone numbers and spam them.

In August 2009 the Australian Communications and Media Authority (’ACMA’) obtained default judgment against Mobilegate Ltd and Winning Bid Pty Ltd – and three individuals – Mr Simon Anthony Owen, Mr Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Mr Glenn Christopher Maughan.

The action commenced in late 2008 when the ACMA learned of the highly organised plan, where the ACMA alleges the spammers obtained mobile telephone numbers from dating websites, after posing as members of these websites. It is then alleged that:

• after the numbers were obtained, unsolicited messages were sent to the mobile phone numbers offering the opportunity to chat via SMS using services described as the ‘Safe Divert’ or ‘Maybemeet’ services;
• the chat was not offered by genuine members of dating websites but employees of Mobilegate and Winning Bid;
• consumers were charged up to five dollars per message; and
• when users questioned whether the messages were from a real person, they were told that it was a real person who was using the “Safe Divert” service to keep their mobile phone number private.

The ACMA claims that the spammers obtained more than $2 million from their scheme, which was in contravention of the Spam Act 2003.

The judgment is seen as a win for the ACMA in its fight against breaches of the Spam Act 2003, and is sure to serve as a serious warning to potential spammers.

This judgment is a reminder to business seeking to use email marketing to ensure that they (a) have the consent of the recipient, before sending an email; and (b) ensure that emails contain a functional unsubscribe facility. These rules should be part of a broader system for compliance with the Spam Act 2003. Websites such as www.mailchimp.com offer list management services, to assist in compliance. Business should also be aware of industry specific codes such as the EMarketing Code of Practice and the IIA Spam Code.

By Erhan Karabardak – Principal, Cooper Mills Lawyers

The ACCC has announced the launch of an Information Paper entitled “Mobile and Other Wireless Internet Speed Claims and the Trade Practices Act 1974”.

The Information Paper has been developed to assist ISPs and Telcos in ensuring that their advertising for mobile and wireless internet is compliant with the Trade Practices Act 1974, and in particular the consumer protection provisions such as s52.

In launching the Information Paper, ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel said that:

“The ACCC is concerned by companies over-promising and under-delivering the speeds available on mobile and wireless internet, particularly in the context of network upgrades and increasing wireless internet subscriptions,” “This Information Paper is intended to assist the whole industry – mobile and wireless internet retailers, resellers, and network owners – to comply with the law.”

The ACCC has warned ISPs/Telcos not to advertise terms such as ‘maximum’, ‘up to’ or ‘peak network’ speeds, “if those speeds are not generally achievable or likely to be achieved by consumers using the network.”. The ACCC warning indicates that it is taking a similar approach to that previously taken with ADSL2+ advertising.

The ACCC has expressed the view that ISPs/Telcos should:

1. only make speed claims based on ‘appropriate tests of network performance’ to show speeds that can generally be achieved; and
2. prominently state the factors affecting mobile and wireless internet speeds such as congestion, location, and other variables.

The Information Paper also contains an Industry Checklist to assist with compliance – ISPs/Telcos are reminded that they should also remember to ensure compliance with CommsAlliance Code C628:2007 TCP Code (Prices Terms and Conditions). Significant effort must be applied in light of the ACCC’s warnings and recent actions in securing enforceable undertakings against some of the largest ISP/Telcos.