New GTLDs: Upcoming GNSO Council Meeting

[Nicolas Adam]

Hi Evan,

Can you enlighten the newbie that I am by telling me what was it about 
the gTLD program that Alac felt was unacceptable?

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.

Nicolas

On 12/9/2011 5:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> The web page about the meeting (that contains the entire video and a 
> list of speakers) at http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH
>
> The main takeaways I had from the session were that:
>
>   * 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 /That position has never been rescinded/; since it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.)
>
>   * 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?
>
>   * 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.
>
> FYI: There is already discussion within At-Large regarding adding 
> further commentary on this issue for submission to the Committee.
>
> - Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 December 2011 22:47, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com 
> <mailto:nickolas.adam at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>     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".
>
>     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.
>
>     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.
>
>     Lets look at this testimony bit by bit.
>
>>     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:
>>
>>     ·domain name registration
>>
>>     ·the introduction of new top level and second level domain names
>>     into the DNS (Domain Name System)
>>
>>     ·fraud and abuse, and
>>
>>     ·using Internet platform to distribute and collect
>>     mission-related information for our members and the communities
>>     we serve.
>>
>
>
>     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.
>
>>     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.
>>
>
>     Again, please explain.
>
>>     I’d like to begin with our budgetary concerns.
>>
>>     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. 
>
>     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?
>
>>     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.
>>
>
>     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.
>
>>     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. 
>
>     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.
>
>>     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. 
>
>     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.)
>
>>     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. 
>
>     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 ;)
>
>>     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. 
>
>     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?
>
>>     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. 
>
>     Clearly, you haven't read the applicants guidebook.
>
>>     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. 
>     Have you heard of SEO. It will do wonder for a fraction of this cost.
>
>>     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. 
>
>     I see you've heard of this. There is a (justifiable) premium to be
>     paid by extremely risk-averse people, unfortunately.
>
>>     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.
>>
>>     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. 
>
>     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.
>
>>     *_Public Confusion and Cybersquatting Concerns _**__*
>>
>>     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. 
>     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.
>
>>     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. 
>     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."
>
>     (...)
>
>     This is getting redundant, in a non-technical sense, so let me
>     just skip 15 or 20 lines.
>
>>     *_Recommendations_*
>>
>>     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. 
>     Fears they are indeed. But the rest of the statement should be
>     puzzling to smaller NPOC members or smaller prospective NPOC members.
>
>>     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:
>>
>>     ·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
>>
>     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.
>
>>     ·That the mechanisms for trademark protection be significantly
>>     strengthened, with the ability to proactively protect trademark
>>     owners before any application is accepted
>>
>
>     Let's discuss details. I will change my tone.
>
>>     ·That the costs to participate in the new gTLD program for
>>     verified not-for-profit organizations be eliminated
>>
>     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?
>
>     Nicolas
>
>     On 12/8/2011 3:12 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:
>>
>>     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 http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html
>>     and will do so tomorrow:
>>     http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ymca-testimony-senate-hearing
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>     Kind regards
>>
>>     Joy Liddicoat
>>
>>     Project Coordinator
>>
>>     Internet Rights are Human Rights
>>
>>     www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>>
>>     Tel: +64 21 263 2753 <tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753>
>>
>>     Skype id: joy.liddicoat
>>
>>     Yahoo id: strategic at xtra.co.nz <mailto:strategic at xtra.co.nz>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111210/22e0cab1/attachment-0001.html>