New GTLDs: Upcoming GNSO Council Meeting
Nicolas Adam
nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM
Sat Dec 10 21:30:37 CET 2011
Thank you Evan
English as a second language here, and I sometimes forget an s or two. I
meant "I would have thought that IP interests had no hold in ALAC". Ip
interests defined as perspectives which hold vaguely that, in the
present case of gTLDs for instance, it is better to turn an addressing
scheme into an IP protectorate rather than just flood the space thereby
depriving of incentives to squat and highjack, while at the same time
permitting all those desirable use of TMed terms for the purpose of
criticism, art, comment, etc.
When it comes to Alac, I'm mostly familiar with ALAC's attempts to hold
at large elections a few years back, and I always assumed it held views
similar to mine (which I naturally hold to be those most appropriate for
civil society, sometimes in a slightly provocative fashion ;) ).
I will try to take some time to read the mexico declaration.
Nicolas
On 12/10/2011 3:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 10, 2011 1:13 PM, "Nicolas Adam" <nickolas.adam at gmail.com
> <mailto:nickolas.adam at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Evan,
> >
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> > Can you enlighten the newbie that I am by telling me what was it
> about the gTLD program that Alac felt was unacceptable?
>
> It's all well documented. A good place to start is in the declaration
> of the At Large Summit in Mexico City.
>
> > I would have thought that the IP interest had no hold in ALAC
>
> There is *an* IP interest. But its not the same as that of the IPC or
> ANA, and I don't know what you mean by "the" IP interest.
>
> For more insight into what I mean by this, I invite you to read the
> public ALAC comment on the (trademark components of the) GAC scorecard.
>
> > and that the default postelian position of adding a lot of gTLDs was
> the sensible perspective of global civil society.
>
> That's entirely possible. But it is a mistake to equate At Large
> with civil society, though there are some common elements.
>
> Cheers,
> Evan
>
> >
> > 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
> >>>>
> >>>> 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/20111210/21604645/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list