Editing Domain name (section)

==Abuse and regulation==
Critics often claim abuse of administrative power over domain names. Particularly noteworthy was the VeriSign [[Site Finder]] system which redirected all unregistered .com and .net domains to a VeriSign webpage. For example, at a public meeting with [[Verisign|VeriSign]] to air technical concerns about [[Site Finder]],<ref>{{cite web
 |last        = McCullagh
 |first       = Declan
 |author-link = Declan McCullagh
 |title       = VeriSign fends off critics at ICANN confab
 |publisher   = CNET News
 |date        = 2003-10-03
 |url         = http://www.news.com/2100-1038-5088128.html
 |archive-url = https://archive.today/20130104041455/http://www.news.com/2100-1038-5088128.html
 |url-status  = dead
 |archive-date = January 4, 2013
 |access-date = 2007-09-22
}}</ref> numerous people, active in the [[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] and other technical bodies, explained how they were surprised by VeriSign's changing the fundamental behavior of a major component of Internet infrastructure, not having obtained the customary consensus. Site Finder, at first, assumed every Internet query was for a website, and it monetized queries for incorrect domain names, taking the user to VeriSign's search site. Other applications, such as many implementations of email, treat a lack of response to a domain name query as an indication that the domain does not exist, and that the message can be treated as undeliverable. The original VeriSign implementation broke this assumption for mail, because it would always resolve an erroneous domain name to that of Site Finder. While VeriSign later changed Site Finder's behaviour with regard to email, there was still widespread protest about VeriSign's action being more in its financial interest than in the interest of the Internet infrastructure component for which VeriSign was the steward.

Despite widespread criticism, VeriSign only reluctantly removed it after the [[Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers]] (ICANN) threatened to revoke its contract to administer the root name servers. ICANN published the extensive set of letters exchanged, committee reports, and ICANN decisions.<ref>{{cite web
  | publisher  = ICANN
  | title  = Verisign's Wildcard Service Deployment
  | url  = http://www.icann.org/topics/wildcard-history.html
  | access-date  = 2007-09-22
  | archive-date  = 2008-12-02
  | archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20081202125045/http://www.icann.org./topics/wildcard-history.html
  | url-status  = live
  }}</ref>

There is also significant disquiet regarding the United States Government's political influence over ICANN. This was a significant issue in the attempt to create a [[.xxx]] [[top-level domain]] and sparked greater interest in [[alternative DNS root]]s that would be beyond the control of any single country.<ref>{{cite book
  | last      = Mueller
  | first     = M
  | title     = Ruling the Root
  | publisher = [[MIT Press]]
  | date      = March 2004
  | isbn      = 0-262-63298-5
}}</ref>

Additionally, there are numerous accusations of [[domain name front running]], whereby registrars, when given WHOIS or RDAP queries, automatically register the domain name for themselves. Network Solutions has been accused of this.<ref>[http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/08/1920215 Slashdot.org<!-- Bot generated title -->] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100217102228/http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/08/1920215 |date=2010-02-17 }}, NSI Registers Every Domain Checked</ref>

===Truth in Domain Names Act===
In the United States, the [[Truth in Domain Names Act]] of 2003, in combination with the [[PROTECT Act of 2003]], forbids the use of a misleading domain name with the intention of attracting Internet users into visiting [[Internet pornography]] sites.

The Truth in Domain Names Act follows the more general [[Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act]] passed in 1999 aimed at preventing [[typosquatting]] and deceptive use of names and trademarks in domain names.

===Seizures===
<gallery caption="Seizure notices" style="float:right;">
File:Absolutepoker.png|[[Cereus Poker Network|absolutepoker.com]]
File:Website seizure notice.jpg|channelsurfing.net
File:Liberty Reserve seizure notice.png|[[Liberty Reserve|libertyreserve.com]]
</gallery>
In the early 21st century, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued the [[Search and seizure|seizure]] of domain names, based on the legal theory that domain names constitute property used to engage in criminal activity, and thus are subject to [[Forfeiture (law)|forfeiture]]. For example, in the seizure of the domain name of a gambling website, the DOJ referenced {{uscsub|18|981}} and {{uscsub|18|1955|d}}.<ref name=abspoker1/>[https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-afmls/legacy/2015/04/24/statutes2015.pdf] In 2013 the US government seized [[Liberty Reserve]], citing {{uscsub|18|982|a|1}}.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Dia|first1=Miaz|title=website laten maken|url=https://kmowebdiensten.be/diensten/website-laten-maken/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220224636/https://kmowebdiensten.be/diensten/website-laten-maken/|url-status=dead|archive-date=December 20, 2016|access-date=8 December 2016|work=Kmowebdiensten|date=4 February 2010}}</ref>

The U.S. Congress passed the [[Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act]] in 2010. Consumer Electronics Association vice president Michael Petricone was worried that seizure was a ''blunt instrument'' that could harm legitimate businesses.<ref name=cnet1/><ref name=hill1/> After a joint operation on February 15, 2011, the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security claimed to have seized ten domains of websites involved in advertising and distributing child pornography, but also mistakenly seized the domain name of a large DNS provider, temporarily replacing 84,000 websites with seizure notices.<ref name="Wrongfully Seized 84000 Domains">{{cite web
  | url   = http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/
  | title   = U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, 'By Mistake'
  | access-date   = 2012-12-16
  | archive-date   = 2018-12-25
  | archive-url   = https://web.archive.org/web/20181225071958/https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake-110216/
  | url-status   = live
  }}</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit]] (PIPCU) has been attempting to seize domain names from registrars without court orders.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Jeftovic|first1=Mark|title=Whatever Happened to "Due Process" ?|date=8 October 2013|url=http://blog.easydns.org/2013/10/08/whatever-happened-to-due-process/|access-date=27 November 2014|archive-date=5 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141205034320/http://blog.easydns.org/2013/10/08/whatever-happened-to-due-process/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Suspensions===
PIPCU and other UK law enforcement organisations make domain suspension requests to [[Nominet]] which they process on the basis of breach of terms and conditions. Around 16,000 domains are suspended annually, and about 80% of the requests originate from PIPCU.<ref>[https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/14161604/Tackling-online-criminal-activity-November-2017.pdf  Tackling online criminal activity] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216034855/https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/nominet-prod/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/14161604/Tackling-online-criminal-activity-November-2017.pdf |date=2017-12-16 }}, 1 November 2016 – 31 October 2017, Nominet</ref>

===Property rights===
Because of the economic value it represents, the [[European Court of Human Rights]] has ruled that the exclusive right to a domain name is protected as property under article 1 of Protocol 1 to the [[European Convention on Human Rights]].<ref>ECHR 18 September 2007, no. 25379/04, 21688/05, 21722/05, 21770/05, ''Paeffgen v Germany''.</ref>