ICANN threatening acronyms and other desirable domain names

[GeorgeK]

As I've long warned, in ICANN's rush to bring forth new gTLDs (which mostly profit ICANN insiders, registries, registrars, and wannabes), it has no hesitation in trampling the rights of domain name registrants in existing gTLDs like dot-com. This is demonstrated by an ICANN working group which is considering some profound policy changes surrounding "reserved names" that could put short and valuable domain names under extreme risk. See the report at:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm

which I encourage all to read closely. My own comments were submitted the day the report was issued, and can be seen via the public comments archive at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/

There are some truly extremist views being represented in that working group, which are currently not a majority or "consensus" view, but it's extremely troubling that these views are even being considered. For instance, from the mailing list archives of the working group:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00786.html

I have worked under the assumption that any names that do get special protections at the second level on new gTLDs should have the same protection on existing gTLDS.

My preference if for some set of processes for removing the names from existing holders thought the use of a carrot and stick approach.

At the very least all such names should become non-transferable and nonrenewable. that too requires a policy decision and perhaps operational recommendations.

(emphasis added) That's truly shocking, to be openly discussing what's essentially theft of elite domain names that are widely held by legitimate registrants and are non-abusive.

The sense of entitlement by these IGOs is truly scary. It's even bolder than TM holders, amazingly. These IGO types think they deserve a monopoly on these names, regardless of whether they're being abused, and despite having nearly 30 years to acquire them. If they made the same proposals for other valuable assets, e.g. land, houses, commodities, etc., to "further their social mission", they'd be laughed at. At ICANN, though, you just never know what they might do, especially given that overpaid and unaccountable staff desperately want to appease governments in order to rush forward with new gTLDs.

ICANN, registries and registrars make the same amount of money in fees, as long as the domain name is registered, so they ultimately don't give a damn who has ownership of a particular domain name (of course, registrants do care about their property rights). That's 50% of the "votes" in theory, at the GNSO, via contracted parties (registrars and registries). Add in the NCUC (which has obvious ties to the IGOs), and the IP constituency, and who knows what deal might take place, at the expense of existing registrants, so that ICANN "insiders" can profit from new gTLDs. This all takes place without any economic analysis, weighing costs and benefits, that the Affirmation of Commitments requires, as per paragraph 4 of the document at:

http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/aoc/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm

I hope you will all consider submitting comments (after talking to your advisers and researching the issue more), and indeed encourage others to submit comments, to protect your property rights as registrants. Registries and registries certainly aren't incentivized to watch our for your interests. As I noted in my own submission, "first they come for the short domains, then they'll come for *your* domains..."

This is not just an issue for "domainers", but for anyone with a desirable domain name (indeed, lots of individuals and companies own short or desirable domains that might randomly collide with acronyms of IGOs), that could see their assets taken if some of the voices in the working group become a majority. If views of existing registrants aren't made vocally, then the extremist minority that wants to take domains from existing registrants might become the "majority", at least in the working group, thereby setting policies that affect everyone.

 

[Biggie]

Hi George

I for one, am glad that "you", are staying on top of these issues.

often we get caught up in the search, and forget that we too... are being watched.


imo....

 

[GeorgeK]

Thanks, Biggie. I hope more folks decide to submit comments, though. ICANN staff already unilaterally started creating a reserved list for new gTLDs:

http://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml

which would create havoc if it was expanded to all IGOs, and then used to steal names from registrants in existing gTLDs like .com/net/org. Dictionary words like "idea" are even on that list. There are thousands of IGOs. They should just use .int, and not interfere with .com/net/org where there is no abuse actually taking place on a particular name.

 

[draggar]

This is quite scary - shouldn't it be the TM holder's responsibility to protect their trademarks - not ICANN? Also, who will decide what names need to be protected? Where will it end? Will Microsoft claim ownership of all MS.whatever domains? What if someone has a website for Mississippi using an MS.tld domain?

Are we looking at a new aftermarket - global domain rights? Who would have the initial rights and be able to tell other legitimate domain holders they no longer have the rights to their domains?

If your name is Pam you can't have your own name.tld now? Will companies like Dell be allowed to claim exclusive rights to generics like laptops and computers?

Is it just me or can this have a negative impact on the internet as a whole?

 

[GeorgeK]

Friday is the deadline to submit comments (i.e. less than a week away). So, if you have a few minutes, please consider doing so.

 

[GeorgeK]

Just one more day to submit comments to ICANN on this important topic. You know you want to! See more at:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm

and view existing comments at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/

If property rights are important to you, and if you don't want bad policy changes in new gTLDs to be forced upon existing dot-com registrants retroactively, then you should submit comments.

 

[GeorgeK]

More comments are starting to come in.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/

Nat, Chip and Alex have all stepped up (and a J. Hureau, who I'm not familiar with). If you don't have time to compose lengthy comments, one way to participate is to simply endorse the submissions of others who've already made comments. But, original/unique comments are always best.

 

[ImageAuthors]

Thanks for the head's up on this, George. I've posted my own comments just now. But I'll also post here in DNForum, mainly in the hope that other people -- glancing over these remarks -- may be persuaded to comment as well:

... ... ... ... ...

I'll begin less formally than others have done but with the same thanks for the opportunity to comment publicly on this draft report. Of course, that opportunity and these comments -- though nominally public -- will be virtually unknown to the actual public, even though the policy being debated threatens the rights of every member of the general public without exception.

To some extent, most important policies are decided by some minority and imposed on the majority. Frequently that minority stands to profit most from drastic policy changes, which explains its interest in framing the outcome. This isn't always sinister, but it may nevertheless rob the majority of long-held rights or set a dangerous precedent for doing so. In this case, the precedent is very dangerous indeed.

Others have compared domain name rights to land rights. Well, it is not unheard of for governments to seize land from underneath the feet of lawful owners when the purpose seems beneficent enough to those in power. But policies permitting such actions should not be entered upon lightly. Restricting new expansion into areas not previously owned -- such as National Forests -- is much less controversial than confiscating privately held property. Choking off an owner's ability to transfer an asset is effectively the same thing, since it compels loss of value or loss of rights sooner or later.

Perhaps the proposal to "use a carrot and stick approach ... for removing the names from existing holders" could be compared to similar inducements used to assemble lands for the National Parks here in the United States. But, in fact, that's a spurious analogy. All U.S. citizens benefit from the preservation of National Parks and are afforded meaningful access to them. The same would not be true if domain names currently owned by private individuals, companies, or nonprofits were forcibly transferred to a few privileged groups. Those groups would use them for their own aims -- which, though laudable perhaps, would not be truly public.

Domains are property; and, as such, existing ownership rights ought to be honored without diminution unless there is some clearcut violation of the law. Forced transfer from an individual to some group with arbitrary privileges -- or from one organization to another organization with more vigorous lobbyists -- is not justified. It seems obvious to me that the rights of existing property owners ought not to be dismantled retroactively. Whether or not new GTLDs are subject to new requirements, domains registered already in existing GTLDs should be governed under the current laws.

Domains are property, yes. However, I'd like to stress a point that hasn't been raised yet to my knowledge. We are not simply advocating for property rights. Domain names are *language*. Ultimately, this draft report threatens, not just property rights, but free speech. Confiscating a domain deprives not only its owner but also its audience of a publicly understood form of meaningful speech. In effect, ICANN would be dictating what a term *must* mean.

Here ICANN ought to tread very lightly because the general public has historically been somewhat attached to its right of free speech. That has included naming themselves and assembling in public places. Domain names are public places -- unless, of course, ICANN sets the opposite precedent, as seems to be the suggestion before us.

Should ICANN repeal free speech simply in order to confiscate private property for the benefit of an arbitrarily defined group of special organizations? No.

Sincerely,
Joseph Peterson

 

[GeorgeK]

Well said, Joseph. ICANN's automated mailing list software will send an email to you asking for confirmation of the submission (as an anti-spam measure). Be sure to click the link, and follow the instructions, otherwise the comments won't be put into the archives.

The number of comments has increased in the past day:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-final-20sep13/

 

[elevatoria]

I do not know why these set of people are power drunked, why should some set of people make laws just because you want to satisfy your self in a dubious manner? I thought such could only happens in the third world where people are power drunked, especially in Nigeria.
I just hope they can not do it and go with it.

You guys have done a great job and hope they are not majority to win the malicious proposal

Why! why!! world people?

 

[GeorgeK]

Just to update this topic, the PDP (Policy Development Process) led to no special protection for acronyms of IGOs and INGOs, and will be sent to the ICANN Board in the coming months.

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm

There's a public comment period, though, and the "losers" like the UN and its lackeys have been flooding the public comment forum saying they still need protection, see:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13/

The ICA blogged about this earlier today:

http://internetcommerce.org/UNvsGNSO

I submitted my own comment at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13/msg00035.html

and others might want to do the same, before the end of this "Reply Period" on January 8 (during a Reply Period, you're supposed to reference comments made by others, e.g. opposing the comments made by the UN, or supporting comments made by the ICA, and with elaboration permitted). The email address to submit comments is:

[email protected]

and ICANN will, as usual, send you back an email with a link you have to click, before your comment makes it to the public comment forum (an anti-spam measure).

 

[GeorgeK]

Hi folks,

ICANN continues to threaten short/acronym domain names.

ICANN released a preliminary report yesterday on whether to create a PDP (policy development process) on reforming the UDRP/URS in order to give IGOs and INGOs special rights in relation to bringing claims. See:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm

My own comments submitted this morning are at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00000.html

I hope you will take a moment to submit your own thoughtful comments, and encourage others to do the same (by April 14th for the initial comment period, and then again by May 6th for the "reply" period). As we've seen before, IGOs/INGOs organized to flood the earlier comment periods with boilerplate "support" letters. We can do much better, and submit independently derived comments.

I would think that most domain name registrants would be strongly opposed to any PDP being initiated, or any changes being made that would reduce the existing due process protections, and that would grant IGOs and INGOs "special treatment."

I think the other side's argument boils down to IGOs/INGOs wanting "immunity" from the court system (but read the entire report for yourselves). And I think ultimately they want to compel *mandatory* international arbitration, instead of being subject to the jurisdiction of any national courts. So, let's suppose you lose a UDRP for AA.com --- if you're an American, you'd be unable to challenge that decision in a US court, but would instead be compelled to challenge it via another mandatory arbitration! (in some international kangaroo court, probably made up of the same folks running the UDRP).

In my own comments, I make the case that IGOs/INGOs already have recourse under existing law, and that ICANN should not be in the business of creating new laws. I gave the specific example of a person creating a restaurant in Toronto or New York with a sign of "WIPO" or "UNESCO" --- what would happen? Whatever happens in that situation should be the exact same procedure for domain names, and ICANN should not create any special rules.

I also pointed out that IGOs/INGOs already waive their so-called immunity, when they register their *own* domain names in .com/net/org. For example, un.org and wipo.org are registered via Network Solutions, and NSI specifically states that these registrants (the United Nations and WIPO respectively, for these example) agree to *Florida* jurisdiction for their own registrations! It's somewhat absurd and hypocritical that these folks waive their so-called "immunity" when they are registering their domain names, but only want to assert their immunity when someone wishes to challenge an adverse UDRP, URS, etc. (i.e. if an IGO won a UDRP or URS, they want that to be the end of the story, without an appeal to a national court; they'd be happy to agree to another international kangaroo court/tribunal, though).

Also, registries/registrars do have specific jurisdictions, and courts can certainly make orders in relation to those entities to order them to transfer control of a domain name. Whether the IGOs/INGOs care to participate or not doesn't change the fact that the courts give no "immunity" to VeriSign or NSI or Tucows or other registrars/registries. IGOs/INGOs seem to only want to participate in places where the rules are skewed in their favour, and not on a level playing field.

In conclusion, national courts are much more likely to protect domain name registrants and ICANN should not be rewriting rules to create special rights for IGOs/INGOs that would compel registrants to give up their rights to use the court system. I hope you'll take a moment in the next few weeks to submit your own comments. (NB: Be sure to look for the automated validation email that ICANN sends you back as an anti-spam measure when submitting a comment, and click the link to validate your comment, otherwise it will not be entered into the archives.)

 

[Biggie]

Hi George


I read a little of the executive summary and if interpreted correctly, would present this argument:

granting or protecting immunity, from "national jurisdiction", would in fact give them rights, priviledges which

potential litigants, defendants, etc, could not exercise.

the argument to exclusive oneself from jurisdiction where others are bound to, where decisions affecting "domain

names" that are also, virtual properties, would give unfair advantage IGO's/INGO's to acquire domain names from

individuals and entities...where they could not, prior to proposed changes in the process, as is.

maybe it's a big proposal, with a motive to "settle" for something else.


imo...

 

[Focus]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Pretty simple.

GTLD's are where the problem starts and ends, worst thing that could happen to the web imho!

 

[GeorgeK]

The deadline to submit comments on this controversial topic is today. Although, there will then be a "Reply Period" to allow people to respond to the comments of others.

I just submitted a supplemental comment today, opposing the creation of kangaroo courts that would be tilted in favour of IGOs and that would give them new rights that don't exist in law in relation to so-called "protection" of their acronyms:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/msg00005.html

All the existing comments can be read at:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/

and one can submit a new comment by using the email address at the top right of:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.htm

(ICANN will then send you an email requiring you to click a link to validate your comment, as an anti-spam measure, before it gets submitted to the public archives)

 

[GeorgeK]

I just wanted to followup to note that ICANN staff produced their "summary of public comments" and it can be found at:

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-16may14-en.pdf

So, now it goes to GNSO Council for a vote on whether or not to start a PDP. Hopefully they vote against it, to end things entirely and to maintain the status quo. Otherwise, there will be a lot of work to oppose things within a PDP working group (which will probably be dominated by IGO reps again).

 

[GeorgeK]

It looks like the GNSO Council ignored (or didn't read!) the public comments, and simply went ahead with the initiation of a PDP:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140605-2

If you read the "whereas" section, it's very one-sided, by ICANN staff.

The GNSO council did not even pretend to analyze things deeply, only actually discussing the topic in a limited fashion the same day as the vote itself!

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16254.html

i.e. that post above is June 5, same as the vote, and if you look at:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/index.html

there were no council discussions on the mailing list prior to that date. Even Avri Doria said:

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16256.html

"Also has there been any in depth discussion in the council of the charter yet. I don't recall it"

Seems like the usual ICANN games continue.

 

[GeorgeK]

The announcement for membership in the working group for the PDP just went out:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jul14-en.htm

for IGO/INGO "curative rights". I strongly urge folks to join it, lest IGOs/INGOs dominate it like they did other working groups. If they get their way, folks would no longer be able to go to their national courts to challenge an adverse domain name ruling, for example. Plus, we don't want these IGOs/INGOs to be able to assert exclusive claims against short domains that have many legitimate uses.

I've already sent the GNSO secretariat an email to join, so I'm in.

 

[elevatoria]

Ok good!