- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2013

May 7, 2013

As I understand the situation, it is not really a "rationale" that is lacking, but concrete examples of future harms which the right to amend could address. As we enter a world that may be very different than the one we are in now (and certainly with a very different mix of registry players, and a world where the distinction between a registry and a registrar is no longer a sharp line, if indeed there is any distinction at all), it is difficult to call up what the specific harm is that may threaten ICANN or the public interest. But it is not unreasonable that good stewardship requires that the Board have SOME remedy for future unknown, but at the time critical, issues. Some of you may have heard me recount of a time quite a few decades ago when I had to install a fibre optic link when such things were a rarity outside of telecom companies. There were two bidders, one who we knew would do whatever it took (including lose money) to honour the word of the contract. The other would do the same to honour the intent of the contract. Given that we really did not know what to put in a bullet-proof contract for fibre-optics, we chose the latter company. In our mind, that was the only possible choice, since we fully expected there might well arise some "gotcha" during the process, but we were totally unable to identify what that might be. So we needed a process that would cover an as-yet-unknown problem. Although a completely different situation, I suspect the logic of the Board is similar. Alan At 05/05/2013 08:40 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Hi Rinalia: >I think a significant but maybe still minority set have in principle; must >be the reason the concept appears in the RAA and RA Agreements. But this >fear of being the DNS 'regulator' cripples their public posture, at least >until they see which way the wind blows. > >Then in addition, I really do believe there is a very small group of senior >policy staff that are fellow travelers; they hold the view that ICANN must >be more activist in the broad public interest. These seem to be feeling >their oats and feeding off Fadi's seeming commitment to push the envelope. > >So far as I am concerned, the ALAC must deliberately calibrate all of our >public postures to support this development. > >Best, >-Carlton > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* >============================= > > >On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < >rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Carlton and JJS, > > > > To your mind, why is it that the board hasn't provided a rationale as to > > why it would support the unilateral right to amend? What are the > > constraints? > > > > Where is staff getting the motivation to push from? > > > > Fadi's remarks during the Ry call in March indicated that there will be no > > new gTLD lift off without agreement on PICs and from Beijing I get a sense > > that he will pursue it. > > > > Rinalia > > On May 5, 2013 11:31 PM, "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Dear JJ: > >> Evan has promised to send you something that might go nicely with what is > >> advocated here. > >> > >> I truly value your judgment and advice. So from me personally, it is > >> always > >> gratifying to know that you - and other colleagues - are so in touch with > >> the influences that colour my view of the world. > >> > >> Best, > >> -Carlton > >> > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> ============================= > >> > >> > >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:15 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > *Brilliant analysis Carlton, with the added spice of your style, wherein > >> > >> > one recognizes some generous ingredients from Fitzgerald, Naipaul, > >> Rushdie. > >> > A joy to read!* > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *Recently, under the aegis of Google,** a "domain name association" was > >> > formed, * > >> > *http://www.whatdomain.org/ > >> > * > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *Where does the global public interest fit into all of this? 3 points:* > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *- The creation of such a business association lifts any ambiguity about > >> > >> > whether ICANN should or should not also serve as the domain business > >> > association. Clearly, business taking care of its own interests outside > >> of > >> > ICANN relieves our corporation from having to worry about those who > >> > benefitted and still benefit from the land grab.* > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *- I'd take this even a step further: the "domain name association" will > >> > >> > most likely be overwhelmingly English-language, US-based and therefore > >> > under US laws regarding trademarks, "intellectual property" (please read > >> > "keep off my grass, I got here first"), with a fair proportion of > >> smaller > >> > actors in Australia, New Zealand, etc. This association will replicate > >> the > >> > current standards, with little room for *registries* from elsewhere. So > >> I > >> > >> > would strongly advocate the formation of "domain name associations" in > >> > other parts of the world, with the view of creating, one day, a truly > >> > worldwide association which would not be beholden unto the mainly US big > >> > players.* > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *- Without waiting for that to happen, we should take position on the > >> > >> > fact that the creation of a "domain name association" does indeed lift > >> any > >> > remaining ambiguity about the remit of ICANN. We should make clear that > >> it > >> > is ICANN's duty to serve, above anything else, the global public > >> interest. > >> > We should be able to fit this topic into the over-arching theme I > >> suggested > >> > in an e-mail sent around yesterday for Atlas-2, "The User Perspective".* > >> > * > >> > * > >> > *Best regards,* > >> > *Jean-Jacques.* > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > 2013/5/4 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > >> > > >> >> Ah well... if and only if.... > >> >> > >> >> .....ICANN would declare the global public interest as its reason to > >> be. > >> >> And if it'd just get over itself and flat out say 'we a regulator!' > >> all > >> >> this argumentation over the unilateral right to amend from the RySG > >> would > >> >> be just some pissing in the wind. > >> >> > >> >> The fact is ICANN unilaterally gave registries license to monetize > >> >> character strings, known and hitherto unknown. And then ICANN took a > >> >> little shaving from that gift, called a fee. You see so-called third > >> >> world > >> >> fleshpots condemned for the exact same thing with tones of high > >> >> moral dudgeon. Not to make too fine a point of it, the registry > >> >> operators > >> >> got themselves a gift that keeps on giving; a protected market, all of > >> us > >> >> lessees. Quite apart from the unlucky - or plain dumb - few, they're > >> all > >> >> the better for it. > >> >> > >> >> Now, here's the catch. Such action most places are usually in the gift > >> of > >> >> the state. And the state tends to raise a statist actor, sometimes > >> called > >> >> a > >> >> regulator - and in noisome places, a regular 'bagman' - to protect its > >> >> interests. The common method to retain some measure of control is a > >> >> license; see the definitive meaning of that term. And since that > >> license > >> >> is the fiat of the state, it usually is handed down, no input from the > >> >> licensee other than their name and particulars. Take it. Or, leave it. > >> >> > >> >> If ICANN would just come out and state the obvious, "I am a regulator, > >> >> suck > >> >> on it' all this unpleasantness would've been avoided. > >> >> > >> >> The contract is supposed to reflect ICANN standing athwarts the portal, > >> >> like Leonidas guarding that gateway to Thermopylae, as it were, > >> protecting > >> >> the global public interests from the marauding - go with the metaphor > >> now! > >> >> - 'contracted parties'. The figment is the claim that the contract is > >> >> this > >> >> bastion of consensus policy making. That is overstating the facts and > >> >> brushing the line beyond which propaganda begins. For the contracted > >> >> parties no way in hell see the rest of the community as having a say in > >> >> all > >> >> this. Quick now, who can recall them crying out for all of us, the > >> fry, > >> >> being invited to the party? > >> >> > >> >> To be brutally frank, I see this kvetching of Chuck Gomes and the RySG > >> >> crowd purely as a manifestation of impatience with the assault on their > >> >> sense of exceptionalism. Message from me: count your fingers going in. > >> >> And > >> >> count 'em again, coming out. > >> >> > >> >> -Carlton > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ============================== > >> >> Carlton A Samuels > >> >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > >> >> > >> >> ============================= > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> >> > From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > >> >> > Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 > >> >> > Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement > >> >> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed > >> >> Registry > >> >> > Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html > >> >> > > >> >> > It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as > >> ICANN > >> >> > said. > >> >> > > >> >> > Best, > >> >> > Robin > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > >> >> > ALAC mailing list > >> >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> >> > > >> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> ALAC mailing list > >> >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> >> > >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> >> > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Fwd: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement
by Evan Leibovitch May 6, 2013

May 6, 2013

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: 3 May 2013 17:10 Subject: Registries Not Happy with Registry Agreement To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu Powerful comments from Chuck Gomes & Verisign about the proposed Registry Agreement and ICANN's lack of good faith in the negotiation process: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-base-agreement-29apr13/msg00002.html It would seem things aren't as cheery and ready to close on RA as ICANN said. Best, Robin

4 5

Fwd: Request for input and guidance by 1 July 2013
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Dear IDN WG, please be so kind to find the attached correspondence requesting input and guidance from our community regarding the User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs. Please be so kind to consider this request for advice carefully. I hope you'll be able to come to good conclusions that we can relay back to the requester of this information. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair CC: ALAC working List; At-Large Worldwide list -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request for input and guidance by 1 July 2013 Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 11:59:11 -0700 From: Naela Sarras <naela.sarras(a)icann.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org>, Naela Sarras <naela.sarras(a)icann.org> Dear Olivier, Please find attached a letter from Cyrus Namazi, Vice President, DNS Industry Engagement regarding the ICANN Board request for the interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to provide any input and guidance they may have to be factored into the implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs by 1 July 203. Best regards, Naela Sarras Manager, IDN TLDs ICANN

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] REMINDER: MEETING REPORTS
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

Dear all, I just wanted to follow-up on the request relayed by staff. Only a handful of people contributed to the At-Large Beijing Meeting Reports. Bravo to them: they did an excellent job and I thank them very much since it was really helpful to read through their summary. But many people on the ALAC and regional leadership did not file even *one* report and I really hope that you can contribute at least one report to this page. Your *ten minutes* will save *lots* of time for other people who have not had the chance to attend the session. And they will really help our ALSes understand what happened in Beijing. Thanks, Olivier On 29/04/2013 18:23, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear All, > > As a reminder, please be sure to submit your meeting reports to the At-Large Beijing Meeting Reports Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/gYU3Ag>. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Fwd: ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN’s Bylaws
by Evan Leibovitch May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: 1 May 2013 13:24 Subject: ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN’s Bylaws To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… *ICANN’s Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN’s Bylaws* ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has filed a Request for Reconsideration<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-gro…> with ICANN’s Board of Directors regarding the staff’s decision to expand the scope of the trademark claims service beyond that provided by community consensus policy and in contradiction to ICANN Bylaws. Specifically at issue is ICANN staff’s unilateral decision to adopt the “trademark +50” proposal for new domains, which would provide trademark holders who have previously won a UDRP or court decision with rights to 50 additional derivations of their trademark in ICANN’s Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). Under staff’s plan, large trademark holders that register in the clearinghouse will be provided thousands of derivations of their trademarks since each separate country’s registration of the same trademark provides the brand owner with an additional 50 entries in the TMCH.[1]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> Entries in the TMCH trigger infringement warning notices to domain name registrants which can lead to increased liability for registrants, discourage lawful registrations, and chill speech on the Internet. ICANN’s bottom-up community-developed process for creating policy had approved of a TMCH model that allowed “exact matches” of trademarks only to be placed in the TMCH. In 2007, ICANN’s GNSO Policy Council, including representatives from the Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies, approved the GNSO recommendations that created special protections for trademark rights by a supermajority vote.[2]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> As part of the multi-year consensus process, both the subsequent Special Trademarks Implementation (STI) Team and the Implementation Review Team (IRT) considered the issue of providing rights to exact matches or additional derivations, and both community-developed teams specifically opted for exact matches only to be placed into the TMCH. ICANN’s CEO testified before U.S. Congress in 2012 that expanding the scope of the TMCH further would be inappropriate since it would create new rights that do not exist in law and ICANN should not be creating unprecedented rights.[3]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> Many months after the final TMCH model of exact matches only was published in ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook and new domain businesses relied on it when filing their applications, ICANN’s Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies lobbied ICANN’s new CEO to make drastic changes to the community-developed policy and grant additional trademark rights in the TMCH. After the October 2012 Toronto ICANN Meeting, a “strawman solution” was proposed by ICANN’s new CEO which included a number of IPC/BC’s substantive policy proposals to give trademark holders additional privileges in the domain name system, including changing the exact matches only standard approved of by the community. Yet ICANN’s CEO recognized that expanding the scope of the trademark claims service was a policy matter requiring GNSO Council guidance, as he stated on his blog[4]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> in December 2012; and the CEO did write to the GNSO Council to request guidance on this policy proposal. Under ICANN’s Bylaws, staff may not change GNSO-approved policy, except under a strict process that involves consulting with the GNSO and a 2/3 vote of the Board of Directors. NCSG filed comments on the proposed policy changes and warned against re-opening previously closed consensus agreements and circumventing ICANN’s stated bottom-up policy development process.[5]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> In addition to the flawed process for adopting this policy, NCSG also detailed substantive concerns with staff’s proposal to expand trademark rights beyond anything that exists in trademark law. It came as no surprise that only members of the IPC and BC supported the strawman proposals in ICANN’s comment period.[6]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> In the GNSO Council’s February 29, 2013 response to the CEO regarding the proposal to expand the scope of trademark claims, the GNSO Chair wrote, “the majority of the council feels that proposal is best addressed as a policy* *concern, where the interest of all stakeholders can be considered.” [7]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> Thus the GNSO Council also determined this specific proposal to be a policy matter, requiring consultation from the entire community before such a change could be made to existing GNSO Council approved policy. Yet with only an email sent on 20 March 2013, ICANN staff announced in an attached memorandum that it would expand the scope of the trademark claims service to give trademark holders rights to 50 additional derivations of their trademark, in contradiction to GNSO developed policy of exact matches only and the subsequent requested GNSO Council guidance on the matter.[8]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> Staff’s only explanation for such a drastic shift in the creation of new rights: “this proposal appears to be a reasonable add on to an existing service, rather than a proposed new service”. Thus with a single line of evasive text, years of hard-fought community consensus policy was brushed under the rug and the new era of policy development via ICANN staff edict was solidified. On 19 April 2013 NCSG filed this Request for Reconsideration of the staff decision because ICANN did not follow its stated process for changing GNSO-approved policy. If ICANN wants to deviate from Supermajority GNSO-approved policy, it must follow the process outlined in the organization’s Bylaws, Annex A Section 9.[9]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> As an organization that holds itself out as a champion of the bottom-up policy development process, ICANN is obligated to comply with community-developed policies, unless the Board of Directors can muster the necessary 2/3rd vote to over-turn the community decision. That mandatory process was not followed by ICANN’s staff or Board in over-turning the community-approved policy in favor of staff’s policy to expand the scope of TMCH. ICANN’s Board Governance Committee has thirty days in which to make to a recommendation to ICANN’s Board of Directors regarding the NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration or report to the Board on why no final recommendation is available and provide a timeframe for making a final recommendation on the matter. ICANN’s entire Board should consider the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee at its next regularly-scheduled Board meeting. Under Article IV Section 2 of ICANN’s Bylaws, the Request for Reconsideration process is a mechanism intended to reinforce ICANN’s accountability to the community for operating in a manner consistent with its Bylaws.[10]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> Because the staff’s unilateral decision to change GNSO-approved policy was not consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws and contradicted ICANN stated policy, NCSG filed the Request to correct the error and bring ICANN into compliance with its Bylaws and stated policies. NCSG requests that the Board reinstate the community-developed policy of giving trademark holders rights to include exact matches of their trademark only in the TMCH, which was the policy stated in ICANN’s Applicant Guidebook when ICANN accepted applications for new domains. - NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-gro… - Attachments to NCSG’s Request for Reconsideration: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-att… - ICANN Website on Requests for Reconsideration: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration ------------------------------ [1]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> http://domainincite.com/12451-loophole-gives-trademark-owners-unlimited-cle… [2] http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm [3] http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Amnesia [4] http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me… ngs/ [5] http://ipjustice.org/wp/2013/01/14/statement-of-icanns-non-commercial-stake… [6] http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00096.html See also: Comments of Registrar Stakeholder Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00027.html Comments from New TLD Applicant Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00014.html Comments of Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00029.html Comments of the Internet Service Provider Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00011.html Comments of Public Interest Registry: http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00024.html [7] http://gnso.icann.org/bitcache/d8eaf7ce8d121b69d340d1d14223520fd7d478b3?vid… [8] http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio… [9]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA GNSO Policy Development Process Section 9. Board Approval Processes. a. Any PDP Recommendations approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by a vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. b. In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with paragraph a above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or less than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate the reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. c. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by teleconference, e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the Board Statement. d. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate that conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including an explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such policy is not in the interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the policy in the Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN. [10]<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons…> http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

4 7

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] Draft Statement on TMCH and Variants
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

Dear Hong, Thank you for this extensive draft statement for the ALAC's consideration. The discovery that the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) does not address IDN variants is distressing, particularly for the Chinese case given its unique variant situation. By way of copying Avri, I am asking her about the possibility of a joint statement on this issue and the time frame the new gTLD WG might require to review the draft. In my opinion it would certainly strengthen the case if it is a joint WG statement. Given the substantive content of this draft, it is possible that the ALAC may ask for additional information and time to consider the draft and to comment. Let's see what Avri thinks and what the ALAC would say tomorrow. It would be good if you are able to attend the ALAC wrap-up meeting tomorrow (Thursday 9-11am) to brief the ALAC about the draft. I expect statement approvals will be addressed under agenda item 4 on ALAC Action. Best regards, Rinalia On Apr 10, 2013 10:19 PM, "Hong Xue" <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please find below my draft statement. I'd appreciate for your quick review > and feedback. > > I was the drafter of the New gTLD WG Statement on TMCH. Shall we also > forward the draft to that WG to make it a joint submission to ALAC? > > Best, > > Hong > > _________________________________________________ > > At-Large Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse and IDN Variants > > > > At-large community is very disappointed at the implementation model > outlined by “Trademark Clearinghouse: Rights Protection Mechanism > Requirements” (hereafter “Requirements’) published on April 6, 2013. > Particularly, the model completely overlooks the critical issues of IDN > variants with respect to trademark clearinghouse (TMCH) and as a result > would seriously impact the public interest in the pertinent user > communities. > > > > According to the Requirements, *matching domain name labels will be > generated for each Trademark Record in accordance with the Trademark > Clearinghouse’s domain name matching rules*. > > > > The matching rules at the TMCH obviously, however, fail to take into > account the trademarks in IDN scripts involving variants, although the > variant issues had been raised by the language community experts at the > Implementation Assistant Group (IAG). > > > > Variant matching is actually critical for certain language communities. > Take Chinese for example, where a trademark holder merely registers a > simplified word-mark but not its traditional equivalence, there will only > be one trademark record generated in the TMCH. Since the new gTLD > registries are obliged to offer sunrise services and trademark claims for > the trademarks recorded in the TMCH, only that simplified word-mark will be > eligible for sunrise registration and trademark claim services and leaves > the traditional equivalence open for cybersquatting. Since both writings of > the word-mark are deemed identical in the Chinese community and few > trademarks are registered in both writings, ruling out the un-registered > writing would make TMCH completely useless to Chinese trademarks. > > > > What is even more striking is that the Requirements specifically prohibits > any registry from implementing *variant or bundling rules* and allocating > domain names *under such variant or bundling rules prior to the > conclusionof the Sunrise Period. > * Such restriction actually excludes any solution for IDN trademarks > involving variants to be accommodated in the sunrise period at the TLD > level, even though a registry is willing fix the variants through its > registration management and at its own costs. > > > > Trademarks have very important function of safeguarding public interests by > identifying the source of goods or services. The malfunctioned TMCH design > would cause serious public confusion and market chaos. Although at-large > community never supports over-extensive trademark measures, ICANN should > treat all the trademarks equally, irrespective of the characters of the > trademarks, and protect the users in all language communities from > confusion equally. > > > > At-Large community has made the statement on the Trademark Clearinghouse > (TMCH) in September 2012, in which at-large community concerns that the > design of TMCH model that uniformly applies to all the gTLD registries, > irrespective of their difference, may not provide the tailored services > that are really needed by the new gTLD registries. At-large community > suggested that “more open and flexible model deserves further exploration.” > > > > The Chinese Internet user community, dating back to October 2011, suggested > that IDN-script trademarks involving variants should be taken into account > in the TMCH services and ICANN consider adopting community-based solution > to address this issue. Many other language communities shared the views of > Chinese community. > > > > Unfortunately, ICANN has been deaf to the user community’s feedback and > inputs and moves steadily toward the centralized, inflexible and > variants-unfriendly TMCH. At-large community, therefore, strongly suggests > that ICANN support community-based TLD-bottom-up solution for TMCH > implementation and address the IDN variant issue before TMCH provides the > services to the new gTLD registries. > > > > > > -- > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > _______________________________________________ > IDN-WG mailing list > IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg > > IDN WG Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy >

8 15

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANNs Noncommercial Users Requ est Board Review of Staff Decision to Expand Scop e of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICAN Ns Bylaws
by Alan Greenberg May 2, 2013

May 2, 2013

I would strongly suggest that we keep the two issues separate. The lack of variant support, but at the DNS level and in the TMCH (two separate issues) is not one of ICANN's proudest moments (to understate the situation). And it is one that ALAC is in the process of speaking on. Hopefully with some positive impact. The +50 "variations" of trademarks is a completely separate issue. It does not change the CH repository or checking for matches sunrise/claims time. It allows a TM holder to register additional strings based on UDRP/Court decisions for TMs already in the CH. As we know, this is a very contentious proposal, and one that has now resulted in a request for Board reconsideration. Best to keep this issue far away from that of IDN variants. Co-mingling the two can only result in slowing the first implementation. In its earlier statements, the ALAC objected to the process followed to create this new rights mechanism as we deemed it to be a policy matter without following a reasonable development process. We did support the overall intent as it was somewhat related to the ALAC minority position taken on the STI, supporting the concept of allowing the entry into the CH of TMs plus terms associated with products or services (ie EXXON-GAS, Dell-computers). In the draft statement that was suggested to be issues along with the NCSG at the last open forum, we would have gone on record as saying that we would not support 50 variations for EACH copy of an identical TM where an entity (or related entities) has multiple entries in the CH for registrations in multiple jurisdictions. As Rinalia suggests, this is a position that the ALAC certainly could reconsider if it wished. Alan At 5/1/2013 11:06 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Carlton, > >Let me break the issue down so that it can be addressed properly in terms >of determining the course of ALAC action. > >*There are 2 fundamental issues being dealt with here:* >1. The current TMCH model as designed doesn't deal with variants. >2. The ICANN decision to allow 50 variations of trademark names in the TMCH >will have a multiplier effect if variants are factored in the TMCH model >(i.e., it worsens the problem of over-protection). > >The statement addresses (1). Without (1), you don't have the problem of >(2). > >The statement is asking for the ICANN board to address the issue of >variants at the root level and in the TMCH model on an urgent and expedited >basis. > >The ALAC's course of action regarding 50 variations of trademark names in >the TMCH is to my mind something that warrants a statement of its own that >can be reinforced with the IDN variants argument in terms of how overly >protective the TMCH can be, but it is NOT an argument to compel the board >to ensure variants are factored in the TMCH model or in the root. > >Rinalia > > > > > >On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Carlton Samuels ><carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > Hi Hong: > > My gut was telling me something was adrift! Thanks very much for the > > explanation. I now have a better sense in reason why my gut was carrying > > on. > > > > So, following on Rinalia's advice, I take it Hong believes the Statement > > is not reflecting the urgent situation. Might I hear from Edmon on this? > > > > Best, > > -Carlton > > > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Carlton, 50+ approach makes variants-disabled policy more ironical. > > If > > > ICANN (staff) is even willing to protect 50 "derivations" that are > > > DIFFERENT from a trademark per se, why does it refuse to entertain the > > SAME > > > trademark in variants. This is illogical by all means. On the other hand, > > > all 50 derivations, if applied to a Chinese-character trademark, will all > > > involve variant issues definitely. > > > > > > Hong > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Carlton Samuels < > > carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> ......from the time the issue of local marks was dismissed as > > irrelevant I > > >> lost my juice for this, maybe out of hope it would, in time, be victim > > to > > >> hubris. > > >> > > >> So now, was this - +50 - not an issue that increased the peril for the > > IDN > > >> variants? I might be mis-remembering but was this not a concern raised > > by > > >> Hong? > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> -Carlton > > >> > > >> > > >> ============================== > > >> Carlton A Samuels > > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > >> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > >> ============================= > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> > From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > > >> > Date: 1 May 2013 13:24 > > >> > Subject: ICANN's Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff > > >> Decision > > >> > to Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN's > > >> Bylaws > > >> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > >> > *ICANN's Noncommercial Users Request Board Review of Staff Decision to > > >> > Expand Scope of Trademark Clearinghouse in Violation of ICANN's > > Bylaws* > > >> > > > >> > ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) has filed a Request > > for > > >> > Reconsideration< > > >> > > > >> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-gro… > > >> > > > > >> > with > > >> > ICANN's Board of Directors regarding the staff's decision to expand > > the > > >> > scope of the trademark claims service beyond that provided by > > community > > >> > consensus policy and in contradiction to ICANN Bylaws. > > >> > > > >> > Specifically at issue is ICANN staff's unilateral decision to adopt > > the > > >> > "trademark +50" proposal for new domains, which would provide > > trademark > > >> > holders who have previously won a UDRP or court decision with rights > > to > > >> 50 > > >> > additional derivations of their trademark in ICANN's Trademark > > >> > Clearinghouse (TMCH). Under staff's plan, large trademark holders > > that > > >> > register in the clearinghouse will be provided thousands of > > derivations > > >> of > > >> > their trademarks since each separate country's registration of the > > same > > >> > trademark provides the brand owner with an additional 50 entries in > > the > > >> > TMCH.[1]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > Entries in the TMCH trigger infringement warning notices to domain > > name > > >> > registrants which can lead to increased liability for registrants, > > >> > discourage lawful registrations, and chill speech on the Internet. > > >> > > > >> > ICANN's bottom-up community-developed process for creating policy had > > >> > approved of a TMCH model that allowed "exact matches" of trademarks > > >> only to > > >> > be placed in the TMCH. In 2007, ICANN's GNSO Policy Council, > > including > > >> > representatives from the Intellectual Property and Business > > >> Constituencies, > > >> > approved the GNSO recommendations that created special protections for > > >> > trademark rights by a supermajority > > >> > vote.[2]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > As part of the multi-year consensus process, both the subsequent > > Special > > >> > Trademarks Implementation (STI) Team and the Implementation Review > > Team > > >> > (IRT) considered the issue of providing rights to exact matches or > > >> > additional derivations, and both community-developed teams > > specifically > > >> > opted for exact matches only to be placed into the TMCH. ICANN's CEO > > >> > testified before U.S. Congress in 2012 that expanding the scope of the > > >> TMCH > > >> > further would be inappropriate since it would create new rights that > > do > > >> not > > >> > exist in law and ICANN should not be creating unprecedented > > >> > rights.[3]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Many months after the final TMCH model of exact matches only was > > >> published > > >> > in ICANN's Applicant Guidebook and new domain businesses relied on it > > >> when > > >> > filing their applications, ICANN's Intellectual Property and Business > > >> > Constituencies lobbied ICANN's new CEO to make drastic changes to the > > >> > community-developed policy and grant additional trademark rights in > > the > > >> > TMCH. > > >> > > > >> > After the October 2012 Toronto ICANN Meeting, a "strawman solution" > > was > > >> > proposed by ICANN's new CEO which included a number of IPC/BC's > > >> substantive > > >> > policy proposals to give trademark holders additional privileges in > > the > > >> > domain name system, including changing the exact matches only standard > > >> > approved of by the community. > > >> > > > >> > Yet ICANN's CEO recognized that expanding the scope of the trademark > > >> claims > > >> > service was a policy matter requiring GNSO Council guidance, as he > > >> stated > > >> > on his blog[4]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > in > > >> > December 2012; and the CEO did write to the GNSO Council to request > > >> > guidance on this policy proposal. Under ICANN's Bylaws, staff may not > > >> > change GNSO-approved policy, except under a strict process that > > involves > > >> > consulting with the GNSO and a 2/3 vote of the Board of Directors. > > >> > > > >> > NCSG filed comments on the proposed policy changes and warned against > > >> > re-opening previously closed consensus agreements and circumventing > > >> ICANN's > > >> > stated bottom-up policy development > > >> > process.[5]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > In addition to the flawed process for adopting this policy, NCSG also > > >> > detailed substantive concerns with staff's proposal to expand > > trademark > > >> > rights beyond anything that exists in trademark law. It came as no > > >> > surprise that only members of the IPC and BC supported the strawman > > >> > proposals in ICANN's comment > > >> > period.[6]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > In the GNSO Council's February 29, 2013 response to the CEO regarding > > >> the > > >> > proposal to expand the scope of trademark claims, the GNSO Chair > > wrote, > > >> > "the majority of the council feels that proposal is best addressed as > > a > > >> > policy* *concern, where the interest of all stakeholders can be > > >> > considered." > > >> > [7]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > Thus the GNSO Council also determined this specific proposal to be a > > >> policy > > >> > matter, requiring consultation from the entire community before such a > > >> > change could be made to existing GNSO Council approved policy. > > >> > > > >> > Yet with only an email sent on 20 March 2013, ICANN staff announced in > > >> an > > >> > attached memorandum that it would expand the scope of the trademark > > >> claims > > >> > service to give trademark holders rights to 50 additional derivations > > of > > >> > their trademark, in contradiction to GNSO developed policy of exact > > >> matches > > >> > only and the subsequent requested GNSO Council guidance on the > > >> > matter.[8]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Staff's only explanation for such a drastic shift in the creation of > > new > > >> > rights: "this proposal appears to be a reasonable add on to an > > existing > > >> > service, rather than a proposed new service". Thus with a single line > > >> of > > >> > evasive text, years of hard-fought community consensus policy was > > >> brushed > > >> > under the rug and the new era of policy development via ICANN staff > > >> edict > > >> > was solidified. > > >> > > > >> > On 19 April 2013 NCSG filed this Request for Reconsideration of the > > >> staff > > >> > decision because ICANN did not follow its stated process for changing > > >> > GNSO-approved policy. If ICANN wants to deviate from Supermajority > > >> > GNSO-approved policy, it must follow the process outlined in the > > >> > organization's Bylaws, Annex A Section > > >> > 9.[9]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > As > > >> > an organization that holds itself out as a champion of the bottom-up > > >> policy > > >> > development process, ICANN is obligated to comply with > > >> community-developed > > >> > policies, unless the Board of Directors can muster the necessary 2/3rd > > >> vote > > >> > to over-turn the community decision. That mandatory process was not > > >> > followed by ICANN's staff or Board in over-turning the > > >> community-approved > > >> > policy in favor of staff's policy to expand the scope of TMCH. > > >> > > > >> > ICANN's Board Governance Committee has thirty days in which to make > > to a > > >> > recommendation to ICANN's Board of Directors regarding the NCSG's > > >> Request > > >> > for Reconsideration or report to the Board on why no final > > >> recommendation > > >> > is available and provide a timeframe for making a final recommendation > > >> on > > >> > the matter. ICANN's entire Board should consider the recommendation > > of > > >> the > > >> > Board Governance Committee at its next regularly-scheduled Board > > >> meeting. > > >> > > > >> > Under Article IV Section 2 of ICANN's Bylaws, the Request for > > >> > Reconsideration process is a mechanism intended to reinforce ICANN's > > >> > accountability to the community for operating in a manner consistent > > >> with > > >> > its Bylaws.[10]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > Because the staff's unilateral decision to change GNSO-approved policy > > >> was > > >> > not consistent with ICANN's Bylaws and contradicted ICANN stated > > policy, > > >> > NCSG filed the Request to correct the error and bring ICANN into > > >> compliance > > >> > with its Bylaws and stated policies. > > >> > > > >> > NCSG requests that the Board reinstate the community-developed policy > > of > > >> > giving trademark holders rights to include exact matches of their > > >> trademark > > >> > only in the TMCH, which was the policy stated in ICANN's Applicant > > >> > Guidebook when ICANN accepted applications for new domains. > > >> > > > >> > - NCSG's Request for Reconsideration: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-gro… > > >> > - Attachments to NCSG's Request for Reconsideration: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/request-att… > > >> > - ICANN Website on Requests for Reconsideration: > > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration > > >> > > > >> > ------------------------------ > > >> > > > >> > [1]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://domainincite.com/12451-loophole-gives-trademark-owners-unlimited-cle… > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > [2] > > >> > > > >> > > http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm > > >> > > > >> > [3] http://www.internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Amnesia > > >> > > > >> > [4] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://blog.icann.org/2012/11/a-follow-up-to-our-trademark-clearinghouse-me… > > >> > ngs/ > > >> > > > >> > [5] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://ipjustice.org/wp/2013/01/14/statement-of-icanns-non-commercial-stake… > > >> > > > >> > [6] http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00096.html See > > also: > > >> > > > >> > Comments of Registrar Stakeholder Group: > > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00027.html > > >> > > > >> > Comments from New TLD Applicant Group: > > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00014.html > > >> > > > >> > Comments of Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group: > > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00029.html > > >> > > > >> > Comments of the Internet Service Provider Constituency: > > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00011.html > > >> > > > >> > Comments of Public Interest Registry: > > >> > http://forum.icann.org/lists/tmch-strawman/msg00024.html > > >> > > > >> > [7] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://gnso.icann.org/bitcache/d8eaf7ce8d121b69d340d1d14223520fd7d478b3?vid… > > >> > > > >> > [8] > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/strawman-solutio… > > >> > > > >> > [9]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA > > >> > > > >> > GNSO Policy Development Process > > >> > > > >> > Section 9. Board Approval Processes. a. Any PDP Recommendations > > >> approved > > >> > by a GNSO Supermajority Vote shall be adopted by the Board unless, by > > a > > >> > vote of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Board, the Board determines > > >> that > > >> > such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or > > >> ICANN. > > >> > If the GNSO Council recommendation was approved by less than a GNSO > > >> > Supermajority Vote, a majority vote of the Board will be sufficient to > > >> > determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN > > >> > community or ICANN. > > >> > > > >> > b. In the event that the Board determines, in accordance with > > paragraph > > >> a > > >> > above, that the policy recommended by a GNSO Supermajority Vote or > > less > > >> > than a GNSO Supermajority vote is not in the best interests of the > > ICANN > > >> > community or ICANN (the Corporation), the Board shall (i) articulate > > the > > >> > reasons for its determination in a report to the Council (the "Board > > >> > Statement"); and (ii) submit the Board Statement to the Council. > > >> > > > >> > c. The Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with > > the > > >> > Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board > > >> > Statement. The Board shall determine the method (e.g., by > > >> teleconference, > > >> > e-mail, or otherwise) by which the Council and Board will discuss the > > >> Board > > >> > Statement. > > >> > > > >> > d. At the conclusion of the Council and Board discussions, the Council > > >> > shall meet to affirm or modify its recommendation, and communicate > > that > > >> > conclusion (the "Supplemental Recommendation") to the Board, including > > >> an > > >> > explanation for the then-current recommendation. In the event that the > > >> > Council is able to reach a GNSO Supermajority Vote on the Supplemental > > >> > Recommendation, the Board shall adopt the recommendation unless more > > >> than > > >> > two-thirds (2/3) of the Board determines that such policy is not in > > the > > >> > interests of the ICANN community or ICANN. For any Supplemental > > >> > Recommendation approved by less than a GNSO Supermajority Vote, a > > >> majority > > >> > vote of the Board shall be sufficient to determine that the policy in > > >> the > > >> > Supplemental Recommendation is not in the best interest of the ICANN > > >> > community or ICANN. > > >> > > > >> > [10]< > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Request+for+Recons… > > >> > > > > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Evan Leibovitch > > >> > Toronto Canada > > >> > > > >> > Em: evan at telly dot org > > >> > Sk: evanleibovitch > > >> > Tw: el56 > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > ALAC mailing list > > >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >> > > > >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >> > ALAC Working Wiki: > > >> > > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> ALAC mailing list > > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >> > > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > >> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Professor Dr. Hong Xue > > > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > > > Beijing Normal University > > > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > > > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > > > Beijing 100875 China > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Fwd: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been...
by Holly Raiche May 1, 2013

May 1, 2013

Hi Everyone I don't know how many of you get Phil's stuff, but maybe he is right and the issue of 'closed generic' TLDs is addressed? Would someone closer to this issue check to see if he is right. (and please put something on the wiki - either to say we are happy that the latest RAA addresses the issue - or not) Thanks Holly Begin forwarded message: > From: "Philip Corwin" <notification+zrdo=66e=lcz(a)facebookmail.com> > Date: 1 May 2013 8:20:27 AM AEST > To: "new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)" <283484908411146(a)groups.facebook.com> > Subject: [new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A)] The purported "closed generic' loophole has been... > Reply-To: Reply to comment <g+40rp409t000zg543zelp004ehdt4hb53000zg4db9t612c346(a)groups.facebook.com> > > Philip Corwin posted in new TLD Applicants & Advisors (nTLD A + A) > > Philip Corwin 1 May 08:20 > The purported "closed generic' loophole has been eliminated in this new RA draft. > > I just took a look at the redline version of Specification 9 in the revised gTLD RA -- the Code of Conduct. > > ICANN has struck the words “that are reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD;” from Section 1b, replacing it with language permitting a registry operator to have up to 100 domains for its own exclusive use. It was the “purpose” reference that was the basis for applicant claims that they could be the sole registrant in their own gTLD without seeking a Section 6 exemption. So the purported loophole is now gone, and all "closed generic” applicants must now seek a section 6 “public interest” exemption. > > Looks like ICANN is already taking GAC advice... > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm > Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement | ICANN > www.icann.org > Comment / Reply Periods (*)Comment Open Date: 29 April 2013Comment Close Date: 20 May 2013 - 23:59 U... > > View Post on Facebook · Edit email settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

4 4

The Guardian: Amazon versus the Amazon
by Evan Leibovitch April 28, 2013

April 28, 2013

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/25/amazon-domain-name-battle… -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

4 3

DNS Summit in New York
by Alan Greenberg April 27, 2013

April 27, 2013

From: http://blog.icann.org/2013/04/dns-summit-in-new-york/ DNS Summit in New York by Fadi Chehadé on April 26, 2013 On April 23, I met with leaders of ccTLDs, Registries, and Registrars in New York City for a milestone event that converged our work initiated during each of the CEO Roundtables hosted since the beginning of this year. Throughout the roundtable series, I have learned a great deal and have been profoundly impressed by the participants' dedication to enhancing, strengthening and advancing the Domain Name System (DNS) sector. This particular session also marked the posting of the Proposed Final 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) for which ICANN is seeking public comment. Getting to this stage, after eighteen months of intense negotiations, is a tremendous collective accomplishment and I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the Registrar Negotiating Team for their significant contributions and collaborative dialogue throughout the process. As part of the summit agenda, participants briefed each other on efforts to raise the profile of the DNS sector, provided status reports on various DNS initiatives, and delved into mechanisms that can be utilized to further demonstrate the value of the Internet. For instance, discussions centered on topics such as info graphics for depicting the domain name value chain; philanthropic vehicles to support DNS entrepreneurship in the developing world; industry conferences and consumer awareness forums; and proposals to codify ethical standards for DNS businesses. What I found to be particularly beneficial during our interactive brainstorming sessions were the perspectives and experiences of the ccTLD operators. We emerged with a timeline for completing our work to be showcased to the broader community at ICANN 47 in Durban in July. I want to emphasize this work was conducted entirely by the CEOs, with ICANN serving as facilitator, and it was truly exciting to see this diverse group of leaders in action. In addition, a sub-group of participants presented their plans to form a Domain Name Industry Association, entirely independent of ICANN, designed to further the interests of a range of organizations within the ever-evolving DNS sector. During the latter part of our meeting, we focused on ICANN's future through an interactive session, one of many conversations to take place in the coming months. As I explained in Beijing, we will begin a process in June toward creating a new vision and a five-year strategic plan for ICANN, and all stakeholders are invited to participate. More information: Video and Strategy Conversation. I am extremely grateful to everyone who could be there, including ICANN Board Members Cherine Chalaby and Bruce Tonkin, and for their deep insights on how ICANN can continue to achieve its goal of becoming a mature, inclusive and efficient organization. ICANN's Engagement Team is already at work organizing comparable events and is planning a CEO Roundtable for leaders from academia, civil society and nonprofits in the near future. Our work, however, is only just beginning as we look ahead to the bright horizon. The New gTLD Program Timeline [SEE ATTACHED] is reflective of these important endeavors, and I remain invigorated by the forward steps that we are all achieving together.

1 0