June 2007 - council - lists.icann.org

Issues Report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations
by olof nordling 16 Jun '07

16 Jun '07

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the Issues Report on dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations, for your consideration of further steps to take in this matter. Very best regards Olof

1 0

Domian Name Tasting Issues Report published
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 15 Jun '07

15 Jun '07

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Please note that the GNSO Issues Report on Domain tasting http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju… (a html version will soon be available) is published on page: http://gnso.icann.org/ This will be useful background information for the Domain Name Tasting tutorial on: Sunday, 24 June, 2007 - 17:30 Sunday, 24 June, 2007 - 19:00 Tutorial: Domain Tasting San Geronimo A/B http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/node/18 and the GNSO Public Forum on: Wednesday, 27 June, 2007 - 08:30 Wednesday, 27 June, 2007 - 10:30 GNSO Public Forum San Geronimo http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-pf-27jun07.shtml http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/node/42 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: New IPC council rep]
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 15 Jun '07

15 Jun '07

Councillors, FYI Glen, This is to advise that Kiyoshi Tsuru's resignation from the GNSO council has now taken effect, with the election of his successor, Cyril Chua. Cyril's contact information is below. Please substitute him for Kiyoshi on all relevant lists. Cyril will complete the remainder of the unexpired term to which Kiyoshi was elected last year. Cyril is a citizen of Singapore in the Asia-Pacific region. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. Steve Metalitz, IPC president -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Revised and final version of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting
by Maria Farrell 14 Jun '07

14 Jun '07

Dear Council members, Following Chuck Gomes' factual corrections to the informational introduction of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting, I have revised the report and am re-submitting it to the Council. Please find attached the revised and final version of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting produced by ICANN staff and originally submitted to Council on 29 May, 2007. Details of factual corrections made to the 29 May version are in Annex 3 of this document. Many thanks to Chuck for his corrections (His email is copied below, FYI). Best regards, Maria Farrell _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:02 PM To: Maria Farrell; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Issues Report on Domain Tasting Thanks Maria and all of the staff who worked together to produce this report. I have a few comments that, although not material with regard to the staff recommendations in the report, I think are important for all to understand as the report is considered. Section 1.1 Definitions Add Grace Period (AGP) Please note that the following statement in the 3rd paragraph is misleading: "When a name is deleted by the registry during this period, money on deposit with the registry is refunded to the registrar." First of all, at least with regard to .com and .net registrations but likely with other gTLDs as well, it is very rare for a registrar to have 'money on deposit' with the registry. This is an important point for at least two reasons: 1) some people think that registries benefit financially from new registrations that are deleted in the 5-day add-grace period (AGP) and that is simply not true; 2) refunds are not required because it is simply a matter of crediting a registrars account - there is no exchange of money, only adjustments to credit limits that are back upped by instruments such as letters of credit. Section 1.2 Background Whereas the general information provided in this section seems fine, there are a few details that are missing: * In response to customer (registrar and registrant) concerns and in cooperation with ICANN staff, Network Solutions (now VeriSign) implemented the AGP for .com, .net and .org within the first year of the original ICANN agreement for those gTLDs, but the agreement was never amended to include the requirement. * When the .com, .net and .org registry agreements were re-executed in 2001, the AGP requirement was included along with other grace period provisions. * When the first gTLDs were added, the AGP requirement was included in the associated registry agreements. Section 3.2 Issue Background * The 6th bullet starts out, ". . . Chuck Gomes of VeriSign stated during ICANN's June 2006 meeting that AGP was instituted at the agreement of registrars and registries: . . . " It's a minor point, but there was only one registry at that time. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." _____ From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maria Farrell Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:55 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Issues Report on Domain Tasting Dear Council members, Attached is the Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting requested by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 9 May (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html <BLOCKED::http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html > ). Best regards, Maria Farrell

1 0

Regarding GNSO Council/Board dinner on Sunday 24 June 2007
by Bruce Tonkin 11 Jun '07

11 Jun '07

Hello All, As I have now joined the Board, I would like to offer any assistance with respect to making the best use of time at the Board/GNSO dinner in San Juan. Please let me know if there are any specific issues the Council would like to raise at the dinner, or any input the Council is seeking from the Board. I will also ask the same question of my colleagues on the ICANN Board. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Brandjacking report from MarkMonitor
by Mike Rodenbaugh 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Here is a brief summary from National Arbitration Forum, along with links to this useful information from MarkMonitor. This info is relevant to the debates around Domain Tasting and Protecting the Rights of Others. Report Shows Cybersquatting is Increasing Substantially MarkMonitor <http://markmonitor.com/> , a San Francisco-based company providing online brand and Internet fraud protection <http://markmonitor.com/about/> , released its first quarterly brandjacking report on April 30, 2007. The report <http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/329_brandjacking-report-april -2007.pdf> details the increasing amount of cybersquatting - the term for the registration of a domain name that infringes upon or otherwise violates the rights of a trademark holder - and other brand use violations. MarkMonitor and some others in the industry are specifically referring to this as "brandjacking <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/3D8A5E019BD3585DCC2572D1001AA3 BC> ," in which Internet users infringe upon the registered trademarks of businesses in order to advertise their own products. The concern of most trademark holders is that these violations potentially lead to brand dilution of the products and services that they market under their trademarks. The report, based on an examination of twenty-five <http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=17&artnum=1&i ssue=20070430> of the world's strongest brands over a four-week period, indicates that cybersquatting increased by 248% in 2006 <http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/329_brandjacking-report-april -2007.pdf> . MarkMonitor's study "found more than 286,000 instances of cybersquatting for the 25 brands it studied <http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0010003B3T19&page=1> ," averaging 11,400 instances per brand. Well-trafficked media websites, which constituted 31% of the reported instances <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/3D8A5E019BD3585DCC2572D1001AA3 BC> , as well as financial services <http://www.domaininformer.com/news/press/070521CitizenHawk.html> websites, appear to be the most attractive targets of cybersquatters. Similar results were found when looking at other types of violations, including phishing, tasting (also known as kiting), and pay-per-clicks. Financial institutions <http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=internetNews&storyI D=2007-04-30T140351Z_01_N30346739_RTRUKOC_0_US-TRADEMARK-HIJACKING.xml&p ageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1> are significantly impacted by both phishing and kiting; they represent 41% of all phishing instances <http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/329_brandjacking-report-april -2007.pdf> and constitute the majority <http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/329_brandjacking-report-april -2007.pdf> of all documented tastings. The report indicated that pay-per-click sites alone have provided about $125 million in profits to "cyber crooks." <http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/3D8A5E019BD3585DCC2572D1001AA3 BC> The increase in domain name disputes handled by alternative dispute resolution institutions such as WIPO <http://www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.en> and the National Arbitration Forum <http://www.adrforum.com/> ("FORUM") also support MarkMonitor's findings. In 2006, the FORUM's domain name dispute caseload increased by 21% <http://domains.adrforum.com/newsroom.aspx?itemID=1176> . The results of MarkMonitor's report indicate a real concern for businesses trying to protect their trademarks on the Internet. Specifically, these cybersquatting, phishing, tasting, and pay-per-click practices are leading to losses of revenue and advertising costs, and false association <http://www.brandchannel.com/images/papers/329_brandjacking-report-april -2007.pdf> of brand names and products. As an initial defense, Internet browsers Firefox and Internet Explorer have attempted to block phishing attempts by inhibiting Internet users from accessing these sites. While the global efforts being made by Mozilla and Microsoft are laudable, businesses are ultimately encouraged to pursue individualized methods of protection, such as careful domain name monitoring <http://markmonitor.com/resources/docs/wp-domainmanagement-US.pdf> , or contacting a specialist IT outsourcer <http://www.ihotdesk.com/article.asp?ID=18141125> for further assistance. Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments.

1 0

Plain text version of new gTLD recommendations as changed during the call
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hello All, Below is a plain text version of the new gTLD recommendations as changed during the call. They are getting better all the time :-) Regards, Bruce Tonkin 1 ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains. The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process. 2 Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain. 3 Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (in particular trademark rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular freedom of speech rights). 4 Strings must not cause any technical instability. 5 Strings must not be a Reserved Word. 6 Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law. Examples of such limitations that are internationally recognized include, but are not limited to, restrictions defined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (in particular restrictions on the use of some strings as trademarks), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (in particular limitations to freedom of speech rights). 7 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out. 8 Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and organisational operational capability. 9 There must be a clear and pre-published application process using objective and measurable criteria. 10 There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of the application process. 11 (intentionally blank) 12 Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to the start of the process. 13 Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of demand is clear. 14 The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable length. 15 There must be renewal expectancy. 16 Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new Consensus Polices as they are approved. 17 A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base contract which could lead to contract termination. 18 If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines must be followed. 19 Registries must use ICANN accredited registrars. 20 An application will be rejected if it is determined, based on public comments or otherwise, that there is substantial opposition to it from among significant established institutions of the economic sector, or cultural or language community, to which it is targeted or which it is intended to support.

3 2

Clean version of changes agreed on the call
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hello All, Attached is a clean version with changes accepted to assist with readability. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Changes to recommendations with tracked changes
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hello All, Attached is a version of the new gTLD recommendations as agreed during the Council call using the tracked changes function of Microsoft word. This is based on my mark-up of the document during the call, and also picks up some of the word smithing done on the list since the call last night. I hope that is helpful. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Formal resignation of Bruce Tonkin as of 7 June 2007
by Bruce Tonkin 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hello All, I formally resign as GNSO Council chair, and as the representative of the registrars constituency on the GNSO Council. Thank you all for your support during my term on Council. Best wishes to Avri Doria as the new chair of the GNSO Council. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3