<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Evan,<br>
<br>
Can you enlighten the newbie that I am by telling me what was it
about the gTLD program that Alac felt was unacceptable? <br>
<br>
I would have thought that the IP interest had no hold in ALAC and
that the default postelian position of adding a lot of gTLDs was the
sensible perspective of global civil society. <br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 12/9/2011 5:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh20S5+5_Uy8YF_FyYq6iy4zudRaCSgjuH_fgWgygAFtOw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>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></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The main takeaways I had from the session were that:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>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". <i>That
position has never been rescinded</i>; 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>
</li>
<li>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>
</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>FYI: There is already discussion within At-Large regarding
adding further commentary on this issue for submission to the
Committee. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Evan</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 8 December 2011 22:47, Nicolas Adam <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> 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 <span lang="EN-US">Not-for-Profit
Operational Concerns Constituency known as NPOC". </span>
<br>
<br>
For starters, the assertion that the " <span lang="EN-US">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) </span>
[??]" 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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="text-align:justify"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">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:</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">domain name registration </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">the introduction of new top level and
second level domain names into the <span> </span>DNS
(Domain Name System) </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">fraud and abuse, and </span></span></p>
<p
style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">using Internet platform to distribute
and collect mission-related information for our
members and the communities we serve. </span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">It is the goal of our organizations to
educate all those responsible for implementation of
the new gTLD program about unintended consequences.<span>
</span>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.<span> </span></span></span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"></span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, please explain.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">I’d like to begin with our budgetary
concerns.</span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span> </blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="text-align:justify"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">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. </span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">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. </span></span></blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span> </blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span> </blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></span> </blockquote>
<br>
Clearly, you haven't read the applicants guidebook.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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.<span> </span>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.</span></span> </blockquote>
Have you heard of SEO. It will do wonder for a fraction of
this cost.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span>
</blockquote>
<br>
I see you've heard of this. There is a (justifiable) premium
to be paid by extremely risk-averse people, unfortunately. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">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. </span></span></p>
<span><span lang="EN-US">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.</span></span>
</blockquote>
<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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><span><b><u><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">Public Confusion and Cybersquatting
Concerns </span></u></b></span><b><u><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"></span></u></b></p>
<span><span lang="EN-US">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.<span> </span>Our ability to
ensure that the public knows and trusts the public
face of the internet for all of our organizations is
paramount.</span></span> </blockquote>
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>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span><span lang="EN-US">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. </span></span>
</blockquote>
Yet "<span><span lang="EN-US">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.<span>"</span></span></span><br>
<br>
(...)<br>
<br>
This is getting redundant, in a non-technical sense, so let
me just skip 15 or 20 lines.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt"><span><b><u><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">Recommendations</span></u></b></span></p>
<p
style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> </span></span></p>
<span><span lang="EN-US">Our fears are not alone.<span> </span>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.</span></span> </blockquote>
Fears they are indeed. But the rest of the statement should
be puzzling to smaller NPOC members or smaller prospective
NPOC members. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="text-align:justify"><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">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:</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">That verified not-for-profit
organizations be permitted to exempt their
trademarks from any other applicant in the new <span> </span>gTLD
program at no cost, or if that is not possible, then
at a drastically reduced fee </span></span></p>
</blockquote>
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>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">That the mechanisms for trademark
protection be significantly strengthened, with the
ability to proactively protect trademark owners
before any application is accepted</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Let's discuss details. I will change my tone.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span><span
style="font-family:Symbol" lang="EN-US"><span>·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></span><span><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">That the costs to participate in the
new gTLD program for verified not-for-profit
organizations be eliminated </span></span></p>
</blockquote>
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:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p>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"
target="_blank">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"
target="_blank">http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ymca-testimony-senate-hearing</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Kind regards</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Joy Liddicoat</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Project Coordinator</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Internet Rights are Human
Rights</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753"
value="+64212632753" target="_blank">+64 21 263
2753</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype id: joy.liddicoat</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yahoo id: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:strategic@xtra.co.nz" target="_blank">strategic@xtra.co.nz</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>