Nicolas,<div><br></div><div><i>"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)"</i><br>
<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your excellent point by point analysis. Obviously, you now know I read everything you post since you slipped my first name in one of your numerous points (quoted above).</div><div><br></div>
<div>Yes, Nicolas, I understand NPOC's genesis, membership and current state of development quite well. I see that NPOC is already a diverse group of NFPs - from the very large OECD-based global brand name NFP to the obscure and tiny NGO in a developing country. These are two worlds far apart and the world will be a better place when all have a chance to experience the two - not many of us have had that chance! be patient!</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think in the end that that size diversity - and all the other diversities it implies - will be an asset for NPOC, NCSG and ICANN. </div><div><br></div><div>I would like to see a NFP world where the large and rich NGOs will work hand in hand with the tiny and poor NGOs - as some do already by the way. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Meanwhile, I cannot stop nor wish to stop any member to speak of their fears or hopes, to devise their communications strategy accordingly and whatever else they wish - in the process "le droit à l'erreur et à l'apprentissage appartient à tout le monde!" - "the right to make mistakes and to learn from them belongs to all!"</div>
<div><br></div><div>But I can also attempt to share my views that NPOC, when it speaks for NPOC members, speak for all members. I'm sure you can tell when that happens.</div><div><br></div><div>We, NPOC, are a new group, we are learning how best to work together, outside and inside ICANN, and we are talking to and learning from each other. We also benefit for being slapped in the face from time to time and our team spirit is growing. That will build cultural and socio-economic bridges between our members in-between and at both ends of the NGO/NFP spectrum. Never has the "esprit de corps" been so high at NPOC... growing pains notwithstanding you understand!</div>
<div><br></div><div>We also learn from the constructive criticism from our more experienced NCSG and ICANN colleagues such as you, so keep it coming, humor (preferred) or not, it is useful and productive. <br><br>Salutations amicales, Alain<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Nicolas Adam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">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:<u></u><u></u></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 <u></u><u></u></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)
<u></u><u></u></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 <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></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. <u></u><u></u></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"><u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></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"><u></u> <u></u></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:<u></u><u></u></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 <u></u><u></u></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<u></u><u></u></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 <u></u><u></u></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 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 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><u></u><u></u></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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Kind regards<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Joy
Liddicoat<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Project
Coordinator<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Internet
Rights are Human Rights<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Tel:
<a href="tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753" value="+64212632753" target="_blank">+64 21 263 2753</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Skype
id: joy.liddicoat<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yahoo
id: <a href="mailto:strategic@xtra.co.nz" target="_blank">strategic@xtra.co.nz</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA<div>Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <a href="http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/" target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
<div>Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, <a href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca" target="_blank">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a></div><div>NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, <font color="#0a246a" face="'Times New Roman', Times, serif"><a href="http://www.chasquinet.org" target="_blank">www.chasquinet.org</a></font><br>
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <a href="http://npoc.org/" target="_blank">http://npoc.org/</a><br>O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824<br>Skype: alain.berranger<br></div></div><br>
</div></div>