new gtld policy update - 11 April mtg and staff notes

[Robin Gross]

There will be a public comment period for the draft RFP, but it is  
not determined when that will be, probably several months off.

Perhaps we should make a request that ICANN accept public comment now  
on the work currently being done.

I should also mention that ICANN is working on creating a computer  
algorithm to make determinations about string "similarity" and  
"likelihood of confusion".   They are trying to use trademark terms  
with legal definitions in ways entirely unintended and that do not  
match the legal meanings.

It would not surprise me if that ICANN board simply did not accept  
many of the GNSO/(icann-staff) recommendations as many of them are  
not implementable.

Robin



On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:05 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Thanks, Robin for this excellent summary of the challenging issues  
> before us. Are there any impending public comment opportunities to  
> raise these issues (especially the staff’s alarming reintroduction  
> of beauty contests)?
>
> What we see here is a disturbing but somewhat predictable tendency  
> to create what you call “carve-outs” – special, privileged rules  
> tailored to specific interests that allow them to bypass the normal  
> objections process. So in addition to the already Byzantine and  
> unpredictable process we add another layer of carveouts. What a  
> nightmare!
>
> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC- 
> DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:48 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] new gtld policy update - 11 April mtg and  
> staff notes
>
> A few key issues were discussed at the new gtld policy meeting on  
> 11 April in LA.
>
> Here are the 70 slides from the meeting:
>   http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/new-gtlds-policy- 
> discussion-11apr08.pdf
>
> 1.  There is a question as to whether a TLD operator can expand its  
> business down the line in ways not outlines in its original  
> application for a TLD.  We have argued that TLD operators should  
> not be straight jacketed into their business plan 1.0 and should be  
> allowed to expand their use of the TLD in lawful ways.  Some in the  
> business and registry constituencies want for TLD operators to have  
> to go back and receive approval from ICANN every time they want to  
> use the TLD in a new way.
>
> 2.  Some want country names and their abbreviations to be off- 
> limits to anyone for use in a top-level domain.  There is a lot of  
> pressure from GAC to reserve words they would want to own.  The  
> GNSO's response has been GAC can object to any application like  
> anyone else and take the names it wants that way.  But there are  
> still calls for a reserved name list for country names and  
> abbreviations.
>
> 3.  When two applicants want the same string, ICANN is proposing a  
> "beauty contest" method of determining who should be given the  
> string.  This "comparison evaluation" was not in the GNSO's  
> recommendations and is something ICANN staff has created.  Many in  
> the GNSO expressed concern about this method, but it remains to be  
> seen whether the GNSO will have final say in what its  
> recommendations are.  The beauty contest criteria for deciding who  
> is awarded a domain name include very subjective and arbitrary  
> evaluation criteria such as "provides value", or is "important" to  
> ICANN.
>
> 4.  The morality / public order string criteria continue to be  
> problematic.  There is some discussion as to who has standing to  
> raise an objection to a domain name based on morality and public  
> order.   We have argued that only governments should have such  
> standing, but the current wording of the recommendation opens it up  
> for any one in the world to object to a string based on morality  
> and public order.    ICANN will adopt a "one-size-fits-all" for  
> standards of morality and public order.  Very little information on  
> this issue was given at the 11 April mtg (only 1 slide of  70 slides).
>
> 5.  There will be a 3-part test for OBJECTIONS:
>  For an objection to be successful in killing an application for a  
> domain name, the objector must prove that:
> -       Community opposition to the application is substantial; AND
> -       Community invoked is a coherent community; AND
> -       There is a reasonable association between the community  
> invoked and the TLD string applied for.
> 6.  The trademark and business constituencies want special  
> privileges for software companies that would prohibit a TLD if it  
> corresponds to a file extension (like .doc or .pdf).  ICANN staff  
> said it was told that there were no technical problems with such a  
> TLD, but the trademark industry is still pushing for this and may  
> get the special carve out.  At the meeting I argued that if there  
> is a question of confusion, the objection process should be used to  
> solve that question.  Those companies can go through the same  
> process that everyone else must go through to raise their objection  
> based on likelihood of confusion.  But the voices for the special  
> carve-out are loud and well-funded; and the contracting parties  
> don't care much one way or another so will likely give in to the  
> pressure to create a presumption against a file extension as a TLD.
>
>
> 7.  Chart of new gtld sting evaluation process:
>   http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process- 
> simplified-10apr08.pdf
>
> 8.  And see also the attached briefing notes from ICANN staff of 14  
> April.
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080422/fcab0694/attachment.html>