New GTLDs: Upcoming GNSO Council Meeting

[Adam Peake]

>The web page about the meeting (that contains 
>the entire video and a list of speakers) 
>at <http://1.usa.gov/vzddPH>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rescinded; since it was made, most of the stated 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.)


From my time as a member of ALAC I remember 
support for the introduction of new gTLDs and 
general support for the program as it's emerged 
(with some important disagreements such as 
applicant support.)

Evan, how does the ALAC decide consensus? 
You're there as representative of end users 
through an At Large Structure (ALS).  Is it your 
opinion that new gTLDs are bad, or did you 
consult with members of your ALS? Were members of 
CLUE The Canadian Association for Open Source 
given information about the gTLD program and 
their responses helped you reach your decision?

Best I can see there's been no discussion of any 
ICANN policy anywhere on your ALS' site. But In 
could well be wrong, only way I can think to find 
out is by using google, a few hits for ICANN 
<https://www.google.com/search?q=icann+site%3Acluecan.ca&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=off> 
(none policy related) and none for gTLD.  I'm 
pretty sure that's not how the ALAC/RALO/ALS 
structure's meant to work.  Suggest you should 
re-read the criteria for applying to be an ALS. 
But CLUE's not alone, google searches show very 
few ALS have any discussion about any ICANN issue.

Sorry, this is probably a bit off-topic for the 
NCUC list, but as you're liaison from the ALAC it 
would probably be helpful for everyone to know 
how ALAC opinions are formed.

Best,

Adam





>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 
><<mailto:nickolas.adam at gmail.com>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.
>
>>I¹d 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 
>>organization¹s 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 prosecutorÅ\ 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.)
>
>>ICANN¹s 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-profit¹s 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 ³look-alikes² 
>>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>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>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
>
><http://www.apc.org>www.apc.org
>
>Tel: <tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753>+64 21 263 2753
>
>Skype id: joy.liddicoat
>
>Yahoo id: <mailto:strategic at xtra.co.nz>strategic at xtra.co.nz
>
>