FT article on ICANN and IRT issues

[Ginger Paque]

Tx Robin. I assume you will let us know what you find out... Best, Ginger

Robin Gross wrote:
> Interesting... yesterday's version of the FT article had more
> discussion about noncommercial users being ignored than today's
> version of the article has.   My quote on the issue was edited out of
> the article overnight.
>
> Yesterday's version of FT article on ICANN:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce57c854-7170-11de-a821-00144feabdc0.html
>
> Here was my quote in yesterday's article that was removed from today's
> version:
>
> Robin Gross, a cyberspace rights lawyer, and executive director of IP
> Justice, an international civil liberties organisation, said: “Icann
> is full of people who work for corporations and think that Icann
> should be run like one. When I try to remind people that it is a
> not-for-profit organisation, they look at me like I am mad. Icann is
> dominated by commercial stakeholder groups.”
>
>
> I'm going to email the reporter and ask her what happened.
>
> Robin
>
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> ICANN in today's Financial Times:
>> *
>> http://tinyurl.com/l8uvgv
>>
>> *
>> *Dot organisation*
>> By Maija Palmer
>>
>> Published: July 16 2009 03:00 | Last updated: July 16 2009 03:00
>>
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago, Sarah Deutsch got a typical call. The
>> associate general counsel at Verizon spoke to a lawyer friend who
>> informed her that someone was selling the internet address
>> Verizonwirelessstorm.com on eBay for $1m. For Ms Deutsch and her team
>> of five trademark lawyers, it triggered another weary process of
>> trying to track down the seller and reclaim the web name.
>>
>> "We get reports of thousands of violations each day and it is
>> difficult to prioritise which ones we go after," she says.
>>
>> Verizon, the US telecommunications operator, owns a portfolio of
>> 10,000 domain names, everything from the obvious verizon.com to
>> misspellings such as verison.com and names such as verizonsucks.com,
>> which they would prefer to keep out the hands of mischief-makers or
>> competitors. This is typical for large companies. Microsoft, for
>> example, owns more than 24,000 domain names.
>>
>> Ms Deutsch's job is about to get much harder. Next spring the
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - the agency that
>> runs the web's day-to-day operations - plans to allow a dramatic
>> expansion of the 268 "top-level" domains, or everything after the
>> dot. Currently these range from the generic - ".com" or ".org" - to
>> the country-specific, such as ".uk". But the US-based body now plans
>> to open the floodgates and let anyone register a new top-level domain
>> - as long as they can pay the $186,000 (£113,000, €132,000)
>> registration fee. Icann estimates that there will be about 500 new
>> ones, ranging from the person or company-specific (".verizon") to the
>> generic (".books").
>>
>> This opening up of the internet represents one of the biggest shifts
>> yet seen in the underlying structure of the online medium. Its
>> implications are complex and controversial - and extend well beyond
>> the concerns of the commercial enterprises that see the Web as little
>> more than a virtual global shopping mall.
>>
>> A representative of the Pope, for instance, has written to Icann with
>> concerns over how it would ensure that sensitive religious domains -
>> ".catholic", ".muslim" or even ".god" - would not fall into the wrong
>> hands.
>>
>> Public interest groups, meanwhile, fear that the changes mark part of
>> a more general rewriting of the rules of the internet that could see
>> free speech lose out to commercial interests.
>>
>> Such concerns, in turn, have prompted renewed questions about the
>> structure and governance of the internet - an issue that has never
>> been far below the surface in recent years. Icann, a non-profit
>> corporation that is still ultimately at the behest of the US
>> Department of Commerce, has faced challenges before to the way it is
>> organised, most notably from a European attempt to put it under the
>> control of the United Nations.
>>
>> The coming expansion of the internet's naming system is a central
>> part of Icann's attempt to prove that it truly operates in the
>> interests of a fast-growing global audience. The Roman alphabet, for
>> instance, still dominates the internet naming system, yet the world's
>> biggest internet audience is now in China. Arab nations have also
>> bristled under long delays in Icann's efforts to come up with a
>> system that suits their needs.
>>
>> If Icann fails to appease these interest groups, the consequences
>> could be severe. Getting it wrong could lead to schisms over the
>> underlying naming system of the internet - in effect, leading to a
>> fragmentation that turns the single global online medium into a
>> series of separate systems.
>>
>> With an end to the years of work it has taken to create a new naming
>> system now in sight, it is large corporations that have been making
>> the loudest noise.
>>
>> The costs and risks for any big company that does business over the
>> internet are considerable. Although some domain names can be
>> registered for a few dollars, if they are already owned by someone,
>> it can cost around $2,000 to buy them back. If ownership is disputed
>> in court, the costs are considerably higher.
>>
>> Yet big advertisers like Verizon cannot afford to ignore the
>> opportunists - so-called cybersquatters - who register variations of
>> its trademark name online. As well as confusing people, fake sites
>> can damage a company's brand in the eyes of their customers. Verizon
>> estimates that at least 9m customers could have been lured away onto
>> fake websites, had it not fought to take control.
>>
>> As a result, big brand owners are trying to ensure that Icann has
>> procedures that will protect their rights when the onslaught begins -
>> ways to get trademark-infringing sites taken down quickly, for example.
>>
>> However, these are proving controversial with other parts of the
>> internet community, such as non-commercial groups, who are concerned
>> that these would choke free speech online.
>>
>> "In Iran the protesters were able to communicate with the outside
>> world because of proxy servers that allowed them to remain anonymous.
>> But there are working groups within Icann working to prevent
>> anonymous proxy servers because they might interfere with
>> trademarks," says Robin Gross of IP Justice, an international civil
>> liberties organisation.
>>
>> While tensions are high, few dispute that opening up the naming
>> system is a necessary step to creating a more lasting foundation for
>> the internet, and one that will benefit hundreds of millions of users.
>>
>> Fans of the expansion of domains say that it could make navigation of
>> the internet easier. Looking for plumber.london might, arguably, give
>> a clearer indication of what and where a business is, than many
>> variations of A1plumbers.com.
>>
>> "We spend a lot of time and money trying to drive people to websites.
>> Anything that makes it easier to find things on the web is a good
>> thing," said Tom Eslinger of Saatchi & Saatchi, the advertising agency.
>>
>> Others add that the high costs of the new naming system will diminish
>> over time. Nick Wood of Com Laude, a domain name management company
>> which works for multinational clients such as Nestlé and AstraZeneca,
>> says that while fees may be initially high, they will "inevitably" fall.
>>
>> "When dotcom domains first started to be sold in 1994 they cost $200.
>> Now they can be registered for $6. That will happen for top level
>> domains. When the registration falls to $18,000 or $9,000, many
>> companies will want to apply," he says, adding that he is already
>> aware of 54 companies in the UK and northern Europe alone that are
>> interested in applying for their own domain name.
>>
>> Yet the last-minute efforts by large corporations to ensure the new
>> naming system protects their interests have brought a wider backlash,
>> exposing the deeper tensions inside Icann.
>>
>> A recent meeting of Icann in Sydney descended into full-blown
>> conflict over the issue.
>>
>> "It was a very hostile environment - even for an Icann meeting, which
>> is generally a hostile environment for [intellectual property] owners
>> and representatives. We had people shouting at us, saying we were
>> tyrants and blog postings comparing us to Ahmadi-Nejad," said
>> Kristina Rosette of lawyers Covington & Burling, who were involved in
>> drafting recommendations to Icann on trademark protection when the
>> new domain names are released.
>>
>> Much now rests on the shoulders of Rod Beckstrom, Icann's new chief
>> executive. A former cyber-security tsar at the US Department for
>> Homeland Security, Mr Beckstrom has been striving for a neutral
>> stance in his first days in office - though his comments have done
>> little to calm the worries of corporations.
>>
>> "You can look at domainers in many ways. Some see them as
>> cybersquatters, some look at them as entrepreneurs. I think there is
>> a rich and healthy debate to be had," he says, adding, "There is no
>> solution where everyone will get what they want."
>>
>> Trademark owners worry that such comments show Mr Beckstrom is not
>> listening to their concerns.
>>
>> "There is definitely potential for a showdown between Icann and
>> trademark owners," says Ms Rosette, who describes Mr Beckstrom's
>> statements as "disconcerting". If Icann does not demonstrate that it
>> genuinely intends to prevent abuse of trademarks, the two sides could
>> end up in court, she warns. "It's no secret that there are trademark
>> owners that would love to sue Icann for infringement."
>>
>> Public interest groups, on the other side, also warn that a damaging
>> division may lie ahead. "If non-commercial users feel like our voices
>> are not being heard at the meetings, we can't get people to
>> participate in Icann," Ms Gross said.
>>
>> Ultimately, the danger for Icann - and for internet users around the
>> world - is that these tensions could destroy the delicate consensus
>> on which the global internet directory is founded. If Icann loses the
>> confidence of countries that sign up to its system, that could even
>> lead to rival naming systems emerging, breaking the online world into
>> a series of fragmented networks.
>>
>> /Additional reporting by Abadesi Osunsade and Farah Halime/
>>
>> *Tug-of-war over cyber gatekeeper*
>>
>> There have been many calls to make Icann less tied to oversight by
>> the US government.
>>
>> Founded in 1998, Icann is a not-for-profit organisation which is
>> contracted by the US Department of Commerce to manage the world's
>> internet domain names. Its founding documents contained the idea that
>> over time it would become more globally influenced.
>>
>> The United Nations, the International Telecoms Union and countries
>> such as China and Brazil have all questioned the influence of the US
>> over Icann and thus the internet. Viviane Reding, the European
>> Union's information society commissioner, has urged the US to
>> transfer accountability of Icann to an international body.
>>
>> This September, a key contract between Icann and the US government
>> expires and Icann plans to take a small step towards independence.
>> But many are wary of Icann striking out on its own.
>>
>> People are sceptical of the idea that states such as Libya, North
>> Korea and China should share oversight of Icann, as they want, says
>> Nick Wood of Com Laude, a domain name manager. "The US government is
>> the least horrible option." There is also worry that Icann could be
>> overtaken by commercial interests, such as the registrars that sell
>> internet names.
>>
>> US congressmen questioned Icann last month over whether it was doing
>> enough to fight cybercrime, whether staff were overpaid, and whether
>> a not-for-profit entity should be running a surplus of $7m (£4m,
>> €5m), as it did last year.
>>
>> Copyright <http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright> The
>> Financial Times Limited 2009
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>
>