<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thank you Evan<br>
<br>
English as a second language here, and I sometimes forget an s or
two. I meant "I would have thought that IP interests had no hold in
ALAC". Ip interests defined as perspectives which hold vaguely that,
in the present case of gTLDs for instance, it is better to turn an
addressing scheme into an IP protectorate rather than just flood the
space thereby depriving of incentives to squat and highjack, while
at the same time permitting all those desirable use of TMed terms
for the purpose of criticism, art, comment, etc.<br>
<br>
When it comes to Alac, I'm mostly familiar with ALAC's attempts to
hold at large elections a few years back, and I always assumed it
held views similar to mine (which I naturally hold to be those most
appropriate for civil society, sometimes in a slightly provocative
fashion ;) ). <br>
<br>
I will try to take some time to read the mexico declaration.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 12/10/2011 3:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh2bai9os8jSeq-mcDaBnkTtDkpyk3HWD5vpfTieicZGQw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p><br>
On Dec 10, 2011 1:13 PM, "Nicolas Adam" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Evan,<br>
><br>
Hi Nicolas,</p>
<p>> Can you enlighten the newbie that I am by telling me what
was it about the gTLD program that Alac felt was unacceptable? </p>
<p>It's all well documented. A good place to start is in the
declaration of the At Large Summit in Mexico City.<br>
</p>
<p>> I would have thought that the IP interest had no hold in
ALAC</p>
<p>There is *an* IP interest. But its not the same as that of the
IPC or ANA, and I don't know what you mean by "the" IP interest.</p>
<p>For more insight into what I mean by this, I invite you to read
the public ALAC comment on the (trademark components of the) GAC
scorecard. </p>
<p>> and that the default postelian position of adding a lot of
gTLDs was the sensible perspective of global civil society. </p>
<p>That's entirely possible. But it is a mistake to equate At
Large with civil society, though there are some common
elements. </p>
<p>Cheers, <br>
Evan </p>
<p>> <br>
> Nicolas<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 12/9/2011 5:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> The web page about the meeting (that contains the
entire video and a list of speakers) at <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH">http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH</a><br>
>><br>
>> The main takeaways I had from the session were that:<br>
>> The assertion by Kurt that the gTLD program had
achieved a broad consensus was shot down by three other
presenters, including former ALAC and ICANN Board member Esther
Dyson. (It should be noted that the last official statement by
ICANN At-Large on the issue -- made at the Mexico City Summit --
deemed the gTLD program "unacceptable". That position has never
been rescinded; since it was made, most of the stated objections
have been ignored and in one case the situation has even
worsened. While one can debate the merits of its position, the
fact remains that At-Large has never been part of the consensus
in favour of the program and little effort has been made to
address its concerns. Participation in working groups such as
Rec6 and JAS has attempted to mitigate the perceived damage, but
does not necessarily reflect a high-level change of position. So
I sympathize with the PoV that the consensus is not as complete
as claimed.)<br>
>><br>
>> The fear of needless defensive registrations is very
real. There was mention that Indiana University felt it had to
acquire "hoosiers.xxx", and that the owner of a company called
"Meetup" was unable to acquire "meetup.xxx" because ICM has
deemed that a high-value name and has reserved it for auction.
This is compounded by the discussion that a number of Senators
have had their own personal names acquired by speculators and,
in their eyes, "held for ransom". The logic seemed to be that if
such difficulties happen when there are just 22 gTLDs, how much
worse will the situation be if there are 200 or 2,000 TLDs?<br>
>><br>
>> The refusal by ICANN to stagger approvals or announce
future rounds suggest that, if there are any early lessons to be
learned in the rollout, it will be too late to apply any of
those lessons by the time they're identified. And ICANN seems to
have absolutely no idea -- not even an order of magnitude --
just how many applications it will receive.<br>
>> FYI: There is already discussion within At-Large
regarding adding further commentary on this issue for submission
to the Committee.<br>
>><br>
>> - Evan<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 8 December 2011 22:47, Nicolas Adam <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> There is lots of problems with this testimony and I
wonder how informed NCSG members could have lent their support
to this terrified plea. It's ok to be affraid, it just sucks
when the people that are unreasonably terrified lobby to impose
their fears on other.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I assume that the 3 days notice is responsible for
the fact that no NPOC members dissociated themselves from this
testimony "on behalf of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns
Constituency known as NPOC". <br>
>>><br>
>>> For starters, the assertion that the " collective
missions [of NPOC members] will be compromised due to the
enormous cost and financial burdens [sic] of the new Generic
Top-Level Domain Name Program (gTLD) [??]" has nothing going for
it, save perhaps its rhetorical qualities. Such gross
exaggerations will get you your project loan rejected, where I
come from. <br>
>>><br>
>>> The conflation of the "gTLD program" with the lack
of appropriate preemptive registration rights *built in* the new
gTLD program is a conflation only matched in its
self-servingness by the refusal to note that new gTLD are
attributed on the merit, after a thorough business case is made
by the applicant. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Lets look at this testimony bit by bit.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> The new gTLD program compromises use of the
internet by increasing the risk of fraud, cybersquatting, and
trademark infringement and by significantly escalating the cost
to protect against such unlawful activities. The following are
areas of particular concern:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · domain name registration<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · the introduction of new top level and
second level domain names into the DNS (Domain Name System)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · fraud and abuse, and<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · using Internet platform to distribute
and collect mission-related information for our members and the
communities we serve. <br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> How? Did anyone at the hearing understand anything
you were trying to say? Where are causes and where are effects?
Those are grand statements that should be explicated. But we
love our talking points, don't we.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> It is the goal of our organizations to educate
all those responsible for implementation of the new gTLD program
about unintended consequences. There is no doubt it will have a
crippling effect upon my organization and any nonprofit
organization here and around the globe in its current form. <br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Again, please explain.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> I’d like to begin with our budgetary concerns.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Currently, the ICANN website quotes costs for
one new gTLD to be approximately $185,000 to file an
application, with an annual cost thereafter of at least $25,000
for a required ten-year term. This does not include the legal
fees required to prepare the application and certain amounts
required to be in escrow. Moreover, there are many additional
potential costs. For example, if an application is filed and
then placed into an extended evaluation by ICANN, the applicant
may have to pay an additional $50,000. An applicant may be
required to defend its application against objections, which
range from $1,000 to $5,000 in filing fees per party per
proceeding, and an additional $3,000 to $20,000 in costs per
proceeding, which must be paid up front. Accordingly, the
ultimate cost in proceeding through the entire application
process alone could reach several hundred thousands of dollars.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Wait, are you actually saying that it is hard to
apply for and get a gTLD? Isn't your point that just anybody can
get one that "looks alike" your acronym and run a fake
fundraiser for a few weeks?<br>
>>><br>
>>>> If the Y or another NPOC member chooses not to
participate in the new gTLD program, it runs the risk that
another entity will apply for use of its name or one that is
confusingly similar. In the event another entity applies for a
top-level domain that contains the organization’s name, the
costs for filing an objection are expected to be approximately
$30,000- $50,000.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> By "choosing not to particpate in the new gTLD
program", you mean not apply for your own gTLD, right? Indeed,
objecting to a bunch of kids trying to run their .YMKA could be
very costly. If i was on your board, I would recommend a
different course of action.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> While processes such as these may be useful in
the commercial space, not-for-profits simply do not have the
resources to participate, and will certainly not be able to be
compete, against for-profit organizations with large budgets and
reserves for intellectual property protection.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> In the "commercial space", people don't take
advices from IP lawers with an agenda. Do you mean that under
(any domestic, pick one) current law, it could be profitable to
form large "for-profit organizations with large budgets and
reserves for intellectual property protection" with the business
model of applying for and getting NPO's look-alike gTLDs
acronyms for the purpose of running fake fundraising? Because me
and a few buddies in NCUC were looking for a new gig since
bitcoin went down.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Non-profit organizations such as YMCA, Red
Cross, Goodwill, March of Dimes, and countless others around the
world not only prefer to, but must, use our monies to provide
critical services to our communities. We simply cannot afford
thousands of dollars to become a domain name registry solely to
ensure brand protection.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I just love it when people use the word "monies".
In french its even sexier. But you're right, "nos argents" are
generally better spent elsewhere than following advices of
scared IP lawyers with an agenda. (Just so I make myself very
clear, I have nothing against lawyers, what with my dad being a
Judge and my girlfriend a Crown prosecutor― one of the best. I
also respect people with different risk profile than mine, its
just that in the present case, no amount of risk-averseness
could justify such unreasonable fears, and so one is left with
the 'hostile agenda' option.)<br>
>>><br>
>>>> ICANN’s new gTLD program does not allow
non-profit organizations to protect their brands and avoid the
public confusion that results from their unauthorized use.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Here we are. I know i've made fun of you. In the
past, right now, amongst my friends in private, and in publicly
archived policy-making forum. I'm sorry. I see now the need for
me to tone down and compromise, if you will compromise with me.
I have made no secret that I am *against* colonizing languages
and addressing schemes with trademark and IP law. But I am ready
to give you this one, for the sake of us reaching a consensus. I
promise to not oppose reserve lists any more if you will stop
trying to expand trademark and IP law in areas in which they are
legitimately un-welcome (criticisms, dissent, satire, art
mash-ups, and a few others). After all, since IP interests have
begun colonizing NCSG in the guise of non-profit 'operational'
concerns (please, Alain, don't tell me you can't see that),
let's just make the best of it and decide right now that we will
use our opposition to craft the most balanced approach possible.
After all, both sides are ultimately in danger of winning too
decisively, which inevitably precipitate the return of the
pendulum, and creates the most instability. Since i'm on a roll
here though, we can work out the details later ;)<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Recently one of our organizations, a large and
historic organization, became aware that an unauthorized entity
was using its name to fundraise, online and in the community.
This led to confusion by potential funders about which
organization was seeking donations. This is a common example of
how our organizations are impacted by brand infringement.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> As you make us painfully aware, there is no
stopping all wrongdoing. The analogy is, sadly though, not on
point. It does not take aplying for and passing the vetting
process and investing lots of monies to run a phishing scam. Or
was ICANN's new gTLD program at fault here?<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Under the new gTLD program, such instances
could multiply because infringers may be able to purchase the
historic non-profit’s name as a domain name. If the non-profit
does not have the funds to oppose that action, immense public
confusion and misrepresentation can result.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Clearly, you haven't read the applicants guidebook.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> YMCA of the USA currently employs 1.5 full-time
employees at a cost of $225,000 annually, in addition to
external legal expertise at a cost of over $100,000 this year
alone, in an effort to monitor and protect the use of its
brand. Many other not-for-profits cannot afford this expense to
protect their name and goodwill. The increase of new gTLDs will
further exacerbate this problem.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Have you heard of SEO. It will do wonder for a
fraction of this cost.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> The primary enforcement mechanism of the new
gTLD Program is the Trademark Clearinghouse, where trademark
owners can list their existing trademarks to take advantage of
sunrise registration periods and warn potential registrants of
their rights. The gTLD program is due to be rolled out in less
than 40 days. At this point, the cost of listing marks in the
Clearinghouse has not been set, creating more uncertainty about
the actual costs for participating in the new gTLD Program.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I see you've heard of this. There is a
(justifiable) premium to be paid by extremely risk-averse
people, unfortunately. <br>
>>><br>
>>>> As I have already mentioned, non-profit
organizations are not in a financial position to register their
marks in hundreds of additional gTLDs, particularly at premium
prices. Trademark owners will not be allowed to preemptively
register marks that are nearly identical to their marks; such
“look-alikes” are often used by fraudsters and cyber squatters
to deceive and confuse Internet users who are trying to locate
websites of not-for-profit organizations. <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> If not-for-profit organizations cannot afford
to register the domain names in the first place, they can hardly
be expected to have the funds budgeted and available to file
these complaints. Nor should they, as these funds are better
served fulfilling their humanitarian missions.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I'd hate to repeat myself, but if there is monies
to be made in this business model, i'd appreciate if you could
PM me.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Public Confusion and Cybersquatting Concerns<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Not-for profits and NGOs rely heavily on the
internet to provide their respective missions. The public trusts
the high-quality services they have come to associate with these
organizations in a reliable manner. Our ability to ensure that
the public knows and trusts the public face of the internet for
all of our organizations is paramount.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Next thing you will know on the IP-powered Internet
you are promoting is that the bulk of NPOs will end up on the
wrong end of the IP stick, the highjacking and SLAPP end of the
stick.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Bad actors in the domain name space such as
cybersquatters, fraudsters, and others who register and use
domain names in bad faith to profit off of the goodwill of
well-known entities have existed for many years in the existing
domain name space. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Yet "Not-for profits and NGOs rely heavily on the
internet to provide their respective missions. The public trusts
the high-quality services they have come to associate with these
organizations in a reliable manner."<br>
>>><br>
>>> (...)<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is getting redundant, in a non-technical
sense, so let me just skip 15 or 20 lines.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Recommendations<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Our fears are not alone. There has been a
ground-swell of internet stakeholders, including the largest
for-profit companies that have repeatedly expressed concerns
about the program beginning in January 2012 when so many vital
issues remain unresolved.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Fears they are indeed. But the rest of the
statement should be puzzling to smaller NPOC members or smaller
prospective NPOC members. <br>
>>><br>
>>>> Therefore, we join this ground-swell in our
concerns about the new gTLD program. We ask that there continue
to be input from stakeholders, and careful consideration of the
impact of this program on the internet, and particularly on
not-for-profits. Among the numerous requests the NPOC has made
to ICANN, we bring the following to your attention:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> · That verified not-for-profit
organizations be permitted to exempt their trademarks from any
other applicant in the new gTLD program at no cost, or if that
is not possible, then at a drastically reduced fee<br>
>>><br>
>>> As i've said, since we are adversaries in
principles (and I hope to be less time-strap soon so I can
contribute to our discussion on fundamental principles), we
should work together to create the only legitimate, balanced,
framework for moving forward.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> · That the mechanisms for trademark
protection be significantly strengthened, with the ability to
proactively protect trademark owners before any application is
accepted<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Let's discuss details. I will change my tone.<br>
>>><br>
>>>> · That the costs to participate in the
new gTLD program for verified not-for-profit organizations be
eliminated<br>
>>><br>
>>> I don't understand what you mean by 'participate in
the new gTLD program'. But in any case, free is never really
free, right? Time, yours and mine, is valuable. I'm doing this
pro-bono. I hope you won't take offense if I ask if you are too?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Nicolas<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 12/8/2011 3:12 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi all - as you know the next GNSO Council
meeting will be next week. The Chair has asked for an update on
the Senate hearings on gTLDs that are currently taking place
<link?> I've just noticed that some NCSG members were
invited by the Committee to make submissions <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html</a>
and will do so tomorrow: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ymca-testimony-senate-hearing">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ymca-testimony-senate-hearing</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As GNSO councillors representing this SG, we
would appreciate knowing (before the GNSO meeting) if any others
are also making submissions and, if so, what those submissions
are. If there are any particular issues you want to be raised or
for any of us Councillors to be aware of, please let us know.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Kind regards<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Joy Liddicoat<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Project Coordinator<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Internet Rights are Human Rights<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Tel: +64 21 263 2753<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Skype id: joy.liddicoat<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Yahoo id: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:strategic@xtra.co.nz">strategic@xtra.co.nz</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>><br>
>><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>