Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published September 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM | Page modified September 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM

  • Share:
             
  • Comments ((0))
  • Print

Bellevue firm’s bid for new domain names raises fraud fears

The single most aggressive bidder for lucrative new Web domains is a little-known Bellevue investment group with an intriguing name: Donuts Inc. Its $57 million play for 307 new domains — more than Google, Amazon and Allstate combined — has prompted alarm among industry groups and Intern

The Washington Post

Comments
No comments have been posted to this article.

advertising

A historic land rush is under way for vast new swaths of the Internet. Amazon has bid for control of all the Web addresses that end with “.book.” Google wants “.buy.” Allstate wants “.carinsurance.”

But the single most aggressive bidder for lucrative new Web domains is a little-known Bellevue investment group with an intriguing name: Donuts. Its $57 million play for 307 new domains — more than Google, Amazon and Allstate combined — has prompted alarm among industry groups and Internet watchdogs.

They warn that Donuts has close ties to a company with a well-documented history of providing services to spammers and other perpetrators of Internet abuses. Should Donuts come to control hundreds of new domains, including “.doctor,” “.financial” and “.school,” consumers could see a spike in online misbehavior, these critics warn.

“If the allegations concerning Donuts turn out to be true, these 300 top-level domains could be the Wild West for fraud and abuse,” said David Weslow, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer who represents several major corporations.

Law-enforcement authorities in several nations have warned for years that rapid expansion of new domains could unleash a fresh wave of online crimes while making it harder to identify the culprits. The number of what are called “top-level domains” is to expand from the current 22, such as “.com” and “.org,” to potentially more than 1,400 next year.

Dismissing the concerns raised by industry groups, Donuts officials saying they are well qualified to run the new domains responsibly.

“We and our very smart investors would have not spent almost $57 million if we had any concerns that we were not eligible,” said Jonathon Nevett, a Rockville, Md.-based lawyer who is one of four co-founders of Donuts.

Federal officials declined to comment on particular applicants, but they have repeatedly urged more rigorous background checks and a more gradual expansion of Internet domains. They worry a solicitation for medical products from a website ending with “.health,” for example, might convey an air of authenticity no matter who the actual sender.

“I equate it with an apartment building, and the landlord lets drug dealers and rapists move in,” said FBI Supervisory Special Agent Bobby Flaim, who has tracked plans to create new Web domains for several years. “They’re paying the rent, so where’s the problem?”

Yet the power of U.S. officials, or that of any government, is limited.

Overseeing the issuing of Web addresses is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit group — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN — whose sharply growing revenue is tied to the continued expansion of domains. Its revenue has grown from $5.7 million in 2002 to $68 million last year, according to federal tax documents.

ICANN officials say safeguards will prevent companies with a history of abuse from gaining control of new domains and that consumers will benefit from the greater range of choices in Web addresses. But they acknowledged uncertainty about whether such rules would block the applications by Donuts.

The complaints about Donuts stem from its relationship with Demand Media, a major player in Internet services that pioneered the creation of content linked to popular search terms, leading to a proliferation of Web pages on almost any imaginable subject.

Demand Media also owns eNom, the second-largest Internet registrar, selling more Web addresses than any company other than Go Daddy.

Industry watchdogs have long criticized Demand Media as a leading provider of services to spammers and as host to sites that commit “cybersquatting.” The term refers to websites that seek to fool consumers who type in the wrong Internet address and end up on one that looks similar but that can be a gateway to fraud.

Two of Demand Media’s top executives, Paul Stahura and Richard Tindal, left the company in 2009. In 2010, they co-founded Donuts to compete for the new top-level domains being created by ICANN, raising more than $100 million for the effort, according to the company.

Stahura and Tindal were joined by Nevett, who was chairman of an eNom joint venture. Also joining Donuts, as chief financial officer, was Kevin Wilson, the former CFO of ICANN.

Few had heard of Donuts before ICANN announced in June that the company had made 307 bids for new domains. For nearly half of those — including for “.attorney,” “.mortgage” and “.medical” — Donuts was the sole applicant, putting it in position to emerge as the world’s biggest provider of new Web domains.

The connections to Demand Media also became clearer when that company announced it had shared rights to 107 of the domains for which Donuts has applied. (Demand Media has separately applied for 26 top-level domains, including “.army,” “.gay” and “.republican.”)

The two companies also have a deal for Demand Media to provide technical services to any of the new domains that Donuts wins.

In July, Boston-based lawyer Jeffrey Stoler wrote to ICANN recounting numerous allegations of past abuses by Demand Media and detailing links between it and Donuts.

The letter listed 39 cases in which Internet arbitration panels had ruled Demand Media was responsible for cybersquatting or similar abuses. In 24 of those cases, the panels found “bad faith,” meaning Demand Media knowingly participated in the cybersquatting.

Among those accusing the company of abuse were American Airlines, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Texas Lottery Commission.

Stoler, who declined to name a client in the letter or in a subsequent interview, has argued that both companies should be treated as a single entity for purposes of determining their worthiness for managing domains.

Officials with Donuts and Demand Media call criticisms of their applications unfair. Of Stoler’s letter, they say his unwillingness to name a client undermines its credibility.

Demand Media and Donuts officials say their companies are separate and should be judged individually. Both portray themselves as well suited to operating the new domains because of the experience their officers have in running domain registrars.

Stahura, the Donuts chief executive, said in a statement, “The fact is that Donuts and Demand Media are entirely separate organizations.”

Their critics still have concerns. Major companies have expressed particular worry that they could be forced to spend tens of millions of dollars to protect their brands from cybersquatting and other abuses.

“We’re all watching and holding our breath,” said Daniel Jaffe, an executive vice president for the Association of National Advertisers. “All we can say is there’s a lot at stake here.”

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Relive the magic

Relive the magic

Shop for unique souvenirs highlighting great sports moments in Seattle history.

Advertising

Advertising

NDN Video

Advertising