In short there may be a simple solution to the deadlock. 

 

The BC has existing positions (especially the BC minority report and I think also with the comments Ron is working with-need to check).

 

In such a case the current positions hold.

 

If members wish to water these positions down then it would be necessary for such positions to be reach consensus – ie. the burden to change the positions would be on those suggesting watering down. 

 

Hence, in my view if there is no consensus on any changes the default position or positions consistent thereto would be repeated as BC comments.   

 

 

 

Dear All,

 

Have been following in this discussion intermittently.  Here are some of my quick thoughts.  The IRT is not and has not been the yard stick by which BC comments or views have been formed in the past.  BC did support the IRT but clearly stated that the IRT had not gone far enough.  If we take the argument that the IRT position should be followed solely then please keep the GPML in.

 

We currently have no solutions for the defensive registration problem.  The URS is not Rapid.  There is no transfer of the domain in a URS.  The Trademark Clearinghouse is not a Rights Protection Mechanism (admittedly).  So what are we really left with. 

 

Jon’s discussions here in the BC are reminiscent of the arguments Jon made in the IRT and the STI where, at the time, Jon was representing Registrar interests.  He has been a valuable member of both groups and I look forward to his arguing in favour of BC positions now with the same, if not greater, zeal.

 

Any argument that amounts to –they didn’t listen to us in the past so let’s give up and settle for what we can does not address the problem.  There is much to be said about consistency.  I would encourage the BC to also take from the existing BC minority position in the STI report.  That is a BC position and hence, it ought to be repeated where appropriate (have attached the STI report – BC minority position is at page 31).  We should be lobbying for better protection, in my view, not less since ICANN staff proposals sideline and ignore business and trademark interests.

 

Lets also remember that the BC position has been vindicated in the Economic Analysis which asks that limited rounds be undertaken and clearly underscores the economic cost of the defensive registration problem.  Just because we haven’t worked on how limited rounds would be implemented it doesn’t mean that the concept is flawed.  The Economic study makes cogent arguments in its favour.  Its now up to ICANN staff and possibly community to come up with mechanisms.

 

Also the Economic Analysis clearly finds that there need to be surveys and studies (details in the report) which should be conducted and then mechanisms developed based on actual statistics.  Clearly showing that ICANN staff has run away with the new gTLD proposal without adequate study and analysis.  Hence, mention of the Analysis is quite pertinent and I support Jeff’s views in this.

 

 

Have pasted my Brussels email below:

My edits in [...]

 

 

 

Economic Study:

In light of the newly released economic study what steps are envisioned by ICANN staff: including:

Survey (how)

Study (how)

Past introductions

Methodlogies

In particular re TM, user confusion (notwithstanding the current RPMs)

 

P – 16 – 17 :

Subsidies

Adjust Fee vs. Favourable approval process

 

25 - Potential consumer confusion or fragmentation of the Internet

26 - Increased registration costs for companies that feel the need to be

in multiple places on the Internet

28 - Defensive registrations

29 - Increased cost to companies to police new gTLD registrations that

violate trademarks or copyrights [VIGILANCE]

44 - 74 percent of the registered domain names either were “under construction,” for

sale, returned an error, or did not return a website at all.   Thus, at least in the early stages of .biz, the great majority of registered domain names were not being used to provide content to users, again indicating that the registrations may have been defensive.

 

59 –

105. A survey of registrants would likely be needed to disentangle the extent to which

duplicate registrations are either purely defensive (and constitute external costs) or generate benefits to the registrants. A survey of trademark owners could provide information on the reasons for registration of domain names in multiple gTLDs, such as how registrants use the additional gTLDs (e.g., to provide new content or purely to redirect to another site) and whether the registrants expect to reach a new audience with the new gTLD.115

 

[Zahid Note -  SURVEY requested by IRT hasn’t been undertaken by Staff either]

 

61 - We recommend that ICANN consider the potential for consumer confusion in deciding how quickly to proceed with the introduction of gTLDs, possibly incorporating some methodology to measure consume confusion as new gTLDs are rolled out over time.

 

62 - This potential project would use case studies to examine the likely costs and benefits in broad categories of new gTLDs.

 

Such studies would lead to recommendations on how ICANN could craft its application process and ongoing rules to lessen the likelihood of delegating gTLDs that will have negative net social benefits and to enhance the net social benefits from gTLDs that are designated.117

 

para 117 – end:

 

117. First, it may be wise to continue ICANN’s practice of introducing new gTLDs in discrete, limited rounds. It is impossible to predict the costs and benefits of new gTLDs accurately. By proceeding with multiple rounds, the biggest likely costs—consumer confusion and trademark protection—can be evaluated in the earlier rounds to make more accurate predictions about later rounds.

 

118. Second, in order to derive the greatest informational benefits from the next round of

gTLD introductions, ICANN should adopt practices that will facilitate the assessment of the net benefits from the initial rollout of additional gTLDs. Specifically, ICANN should require registries, registrars, and domain names registrants to provide information sufficient to allow the estimation of the costs and benefits of new gTLDs. For example, there might be mandatory reporting of trademark disputes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@nevett.net]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 3:10 PM
To: Deutsch, Sarah B
Cc: Zahid Jamil; Phil Corwin; michaelc@traveler.com; mike@haven2.com; jb7454@att.com; randruff@rnapartners.com; ffelman@markmonitor.com; bc-GNSO@icann.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] DRAFT BC Public Comments on DAGv4