New book on the Regulation of Domain Names

Abstract from my book: "The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: domain names as second-class citizens in a mark-dominated world", available now by Routledge - http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415477765/

Questions concerning the legality of domain names have never received the kind of attention they deserved; in all truth, the attention has perpetually focused on the harm trademark owners are enduring through the use of domain names. Early domain name regulation indicates that Internet policies highlighted the threat – potential and actual – domain names were posing to trademarks and any amendments on such policies proceeded on the basis that trademark protection should be more robust and rigorous. The promulgation of ICANN’s UDRP is one such example; it was justified on the face of lack of trademark protection on the Internet and was substantiated on the way domain names impair the value of trademarks. To the present day, domain name policies and trademark regulations are still developed, structured and arranged using justifications of trademark protection.

I strongly refute this assertion. Trademark protection on the Internet is vital; it is equally vital, however, to rationalize the pragmatic considerations of this protection. We have spent time and resources debating and streamlining on the impact of cybersquatting on trademark law, completely disregarding how trademark lobbying has manipulated the authority of Internet institutions (ICANN) and has pressured for policies (UDRP and IRT) seeking to expand the conceptual basis of trademark law. Ten years ago we missed the window of opportunity to formalize the legal nature of domain names and, consequently, strike a balance between the competing interests of trademark owners and domain name registrants.

My forthcoming book – “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: Domain Names as Second Class Citizens in a Mark-Dominated World” – re-opens the discussion on the state of domain name regulation, questioning the legitimacy of its intellectual, institutional and moral structure. The timing for this kind of discussion could not have been more appropriate as ICANN is venturing into new policy with the launch of its new gTLDs programme and intellectual property lobbying is – once again – seeking to direct policy-makers into areas that stretch the philosophical basis of trademark law.

In the book I promote the thesis that the determination and recognition of domain names as autonomous, sui generis, rights is intellectually imperative, because it is through this intellectual conjecture that we will end in modifying the current status quo. Using the theory of property as my starting point, I discuss issues of ownership (dominium) and sovereignty (imperium). My argument centres on the concept of the ‘bundle of rights’ and how it has evolved to denote ownership over tangible and intangible assets; it does not seek to dispute the theory of the ‘bundle of rights’, rather I accept it as property’s contemporary variant. For me, the metamorphosis of property law is occurring at regular intervals and, currently, it encompasses both tangible and intangible assets that can be associated with such a ‘bundle’. This description, however, can have a negative impact on property – the clearest example being trademark rights - one that Morris Cohen identified in his visionary 1927 article when discussing the dangers of the concepts of dominium and imperium being conceptually blurred.

With this understanding of property in mind, I then proceed to display trademarks and domain names. I discuss the systematic effort of the trademark community to canonize trademark protection (Progressives movement) and demonstrate the importance of trademarks as property commodities. However, I also acknowledge that attributing property characteristics does not grant immunity to trademarks, the same way that property does not grant immunity to any right. Trademark law operates under limitations and restrictions (for instance, territoriality, genericness and free speech), which ensure the smooth function of the market and allow entrepreneurship to flourish.

On the contrary, such needs are not preserved through the presence of trademarks on the Internet. There is a great amount of conceptual vagueness and legal presupposition on the kind of protection trademarks should receive in the domain name space. Such an attitude ignores emerging questions concerning the nature of domain names, their relationship with trademarks and their online importance. The truth is that these questions are so complex that American courts are split and seem unwilling to create a blanket rule on how law should treat domain names.

In such a vague environment, the UDRP plays a major role and contributes significantly to this legal cul de sac. Although politics within ICANN have compromised attempts to produce a fair process, the UDRP was meant to be a harmless policy, with a specific subject matter and limited to cover only a very small fraction of trademark infringement. At the time, no one anticipated the UDRP to transcend traditional trademark law and become an online establishment. Nowadays and with a massive body of case law, which shows signs of exponential growth, ICANN’s policy is considered as the dominant platform for trademark vs. domain name resolution.

The UDRP, however, is far from an authoritative statute; its genesis was based on illegitimate grounds, its procedures are substantially flawed and unfair, it restricts the rights of domain name registrants and it is crowded with examples of inconsistent and biased decisions. Its subject matter has been extended to cover almost every trademark issue that occurs on the Internet, disrespecting the traditional and long-standing principles of trademark law, often granting unsanctioned international protection to trademark owners, suppressing free speech and disintegrating the legal rights of domain name registrants. in short, trademark interests have managed to excommunicate domain name registrants and entrepreneurs.

This degree of substantial and procedural unfairness poses an ethical problem for domain name regulation. My thesis is to build a framework for domain names– the “domain name polis” as I call it – where fundamental principles of justice, like fairness, equality and lawfulness, hold a prominent position and direct any amendments on the Policy towards respecting and reflecting these ethical ideals.

The latest proposal by ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) makes the creation of this framework even more important. Suggesting policy that re-defines the conceptual parameters of trademark law, the IRT advocates the success of the UDRP, does not recognize any of the intellectual legal issues and consciously dismisses the unfairness that is taking place.

It is, therefore, important for scholars and intellectuals to reopen the discussion on the conceptual boundaries of trademark law, revisit its limitations and parameters and refine the state of domain name regulation.

New UDRP study shows signs of unreliable procedures.

I just happened to come across an article that shows what appears to be another hit in the process that ICANN has placed much of its future on - that is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution System (UDRP) of course. It all started when attorney Zak Muscovitch released a study concerning the way one of ICANN's accredited UDRP providers - the National Arbitration Forum - is distributing its case load to its various employees. His results show that some of the panelists receive a substantial amount of cases with the majority of these cases being decided in favor of the complaining party (trademark owner). This prompted DomainNameWire to conduct its own study of WIPO panelists and its conclusions were that many of the top 10 panelists have recorded the lowest complainant win.

What does this all mean? Well it means that we are exactly in the same place we were when professor Geist released his study almost 10 years ago. He introduced us to the possibility of forum shopping the same way he introduced us to the fact that we really have no knowledge as to how the centers appoint their UDRP panelists. And, when asked, we always seem to receive abstract and non-satisfying answers. What a great inconsistency for a system that is supposed to be uniform.

So, these results are not really something new and they should not come as a surprise to anyone. Even though it is really the responsibility of each one of the centers to appoint its panels equitably and to the best interests of both parties, the fact that ICANN has left the UDRP on its own and without proper review or control has resulted in a system that demonstrates signs of disintegration (look WIPO's attempt to sidetrack ICANN's Uniform Rapid Suspension System though the initiation of a 'fast-track' process). Needless to say that, at this point, it really makes no difference which center is more bias - the fact remains that the UDRP is disproportionally biased in favor of trademark interests whether this is done through forum shopping or through the intentional appointment of certain panelists.

However, the effect of this study is much more profound. ICANN is currently in the process of using the UDRP as the prototype to suggest the creation of two separate policies - the Uniform Rapid Suspension System URS) and the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP). Both processes are conceived, structured and drafted with the whole skeleton of the UDRP in mind - everything, its rules, its procedures, its substance, everything - and have both been justified on the success of the UDRP. Now, what does that tell us about the fairness and justice of these systems?

It actually tells us a lot. It tells us that both systems are about to fail, are about to become biased and are about to create a highly competitive market for the ICANN-accredited centers that will seek to please their trademark customers. Now, if that is done through forum shopping or intentional panel appointments, again it does not really make that much difference. Complainants will still win and both systems will stagnate just like the UDRP.

The UDRP needs an immediate review, especially if it is to be used as the basis for other systems. The fact that the UDRP is so bankable explains why so far none of its stakeholders has initiated any process to review its body both substantially and procedurally; UDRP decisions bring a lot of money and reputation to both the centers and many of their panelists. This is the price of not having in place proper checks and balances that will ensure the proper application of justice.

My Personal Statement to ICANN on its trademark policies

April 1, 2010

Dear ICANN,

I would first like to welcome the opportunity to submit comments on the revised ICANN proposals concerning the implementation of trademark protection mechanisms, namely the creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse (TMC), a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system and a Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP). I would also like to commend ICANN for creating the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team to provide recommendations on how trademark issues should be addressed in light of the new gTLDs programme and the eminent expansion of the Root.

STI was tasked with a heavy duty – to recommend processes and address issues that sought to provide solutions to the benefit of both trademarks owners, non-commercial users and the wider DNS community. Despite the limited amount of time, STI managed to meet its targets and produce recommendations that achieved a legitimate balance between the conflicting interests of the trademark community and individual users. The work and results produced by the STI should not be taken lightly. Notwithstanding the fact that for some its recommendations were not ideal, in that they left some issues unanswered and subject to further deliberations, it has to be accepted that, in the history of ICANN, it has been perhaps the first time that trademark issues have been addressed by a multi-stakeholder body, following ICANN’s bottom-up processes. The recommendations produced by this divergent group were based on compromise and, in their majority, have reached unanimous consensus. To this end, it is important to treat the work of the STI as one that has facilitated the application of justice and due process, has set in motion the introduction of substantive qualitative criteria in the protection of trademarks in the DNS and has, finally, addressed the parameters of the intersection between trademarks and domain names. Seeking to support the vision of ICANN towards the introduction of new gTLDs, the STI recommendations contain certain qualities (unseen and unheard in other ICANN-related trademark policies) – normative generality, substantive definiteness and permanence, all of which contribute significantly to the legitimacy of the STI’s work and its final recommendations.

Through the amendments suggested, the revised ICANN staff proposals place the work and value of the STI in jeopardy; this has a further impact upon the bottom-up policies followed by ICANN. On a general note, the new proposals contain many language mistakes that misinterpret the STI’s recommendations and can easily mislead the bodies that will eventually use these processes. This is a serious issue, considering that it is these proposals that will determine the de jure rights of the participants and their participation in the new gTLD process. Furthermore, some of the additions are arbitrarily inserted, with no justification or reason.

We have to be very careful and it is necessary that this time we get it right. Over the years, ICANN’s trademark policies have received heavy criticism of being captured by trademark lobbying and interests; this criticism should not be perceived as being unjustifiable. The UDRP experience has taught us a valuable lesson: unless we create solid and carefully- balanced frameworks, we are in danger of assigning broad rights to trademark owners, where there is no justification to do so, jeopardize the rights of legitimate domain name holders and upset fundamental principles of trademark legality. WIPO and the trademark community have easily declared the UDRP as a success story, but the issue is far more complex.

It is mainly for this reason that the revised proposals should be carefully worded, artistically structured and remain within their original mandate. The goal here is not just to protect the trademark community and its rights; the goal is to submit to well-balanced proposals that will smooth the registration system and will pave the way for the increase of more participants in the registration environment. The STI operated on that basis; it operated under the presumption that the registration system will have to protect the existing rights but not to the expense of the creation of new ones. Everyone should be afforded the right to participate in the new gTLD process and this should be reflected in all of ICANN’s new gTLD policies, including the one concerning the protection of trademarks.

More specifically and while adhering to the majority of the principles promoted by the STI, the Trademark Clearinghouse incorporates wording, which, at the same time, significantly departs from the STI’s vision. For example, it suggests that ‘ancillary services’ can extend to include every single intellectual property right (p.2), when in the STI’s mind these services only meant to relate to trademarks (‘ancillary trademark services’); through the inclusion of all marks, regardless of jurisdiction (p.2), it seems to be encouraging the creation of ‘trademark havens’, which will pave the way for ‘easy’ registrations, which will further negate the rights of registrants (to an extent even those of existing trademark owners) and make their participation in the gTLD programme a difficult task; it differentiates between valid trademark registrations, negating the right of specific mark owners (those who hold valid trademark registrations incorporating a gTLD term – p.4), even though such rights have been assigned by legitimate Patent and Trademark Offices around the world; it fails to identify the need to incorporate within its structure international agreements, such as the International Class of Goods and/or Services (p.5). These are all critical issues and the fact that have been misinterpreted, wrongly phrased or omitted within this revised version suggests that the proposal for the TMC was not drafted with the idea of having a repository of information, rather with the notion that the TMC constitutes an additional tool for the protection of trademark owners. This is disappointing and dilutes the value of the TMC.

More important issues are being raised in the context of the Uniform Rapid Suspension system and the way it is presented in this revised version. Whereas the STI was very conscious in getting the URS wording right, now attention has not been paid to the language of the rules and procedures, thus curtailing their procedural importance and substantive appearance within the system (for example, the pointless replacement of STI’s “Safe Harbor” terminology with the word “Defenses” or the poor wording of section 5.8, which changes the whole meaning of the sentence by inserting bad faith when it is really about the good faith of the Registrant). Moreover, the revised procedural aspects of the policy operate under a presumption of guilt for the Registrant (“Given the nature of expected disputes in this venue, it is thought, more often than not, that no response to complaints will be submitted… p.3) and create an illegitimate moral dependency upon trademark owners and their wishes (s. 5.2: “Upon request by the Registrant, a limited extension of time to respond may be granted by the URS Provider if there is a good faith basis for doing so and it does not harm the Complainant”, p.4).

The worst aspect of this version of the URS is that it seems to be limiting the procedural rights of the Registrants. In particular, the interpretation of default as being based also upon a mistake during the filing of the response (s. 6.1 “If the answer is determined not to be in compliance with the filing requirements, Default is also appropriate”) is illegitimate. In most of the cases, Registrants represent themselves, operate under confined deadlines and English is not their first language. Should we not, at the very least, recognize these difficulties and give Registrants the benefit of the doubt?

But, to an extent this new version of the Policy seeks to restrict the subject matter of the disputes as well as the remedies against the losing party. This is good, as long as Examiners adhere to it. For the STI, this was achieved through the ‘Safe Harbors’, the option of an internal appeals process, through the ‘Abusive Complaints provision (which needs to return to the STI’s wording since it contains a lot of language errors and is unnecessarily confusing) and, finally, through the mandatory review of the URS. This last provision of the STI, which received unanimous consensus and it would eventually determine the success of the URS, was ‘skilfully’ omitted from this version without any justification.

All these issues will certainly have an impact on the new gTLD programme. How is ICANN expecting to receive the trust of individual users, if it fails to respect their rights and demonstrate that it has learned from past mistakes? How will the wider Internet community trust the new gTLD registration environment?

The Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy (PDDRP) answers this. The PDDRP provides for a mechanism, whose effects, unless carefully considered and reviewed, can have an impact upon the registration culture and the trust it currently enjoys. The Policy is bad – it fails to take into account important factors like the direction it pushes Registries towards, the implications this will have upon the creation of a highly trademark-oriented registration environment and how unsafe and fragile this procedure is.

The STI recommendation paved the way towards the direction of a balanced approach. The STI’s recommendations were the result of a multi-stakeholder team, representing all interests in the DNS and ICANN. There were no winners and no losers – there was a balance. I hope ICANN endorses the STI’s work and ensure that the insertions of version 4 of the Guidebook reflect this balance.

I hope you take these comments into consideration. Thank you.

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation: domain names as second-class citizens in a mark-dominated world” Routledge.

Comments of NCUC’s STI Members

To the ICANN Board, Staff and the wider Internet Community:

We welcome the opportunity to submit our comments to the recent work of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team in relation to the overarching issues pertaining the relationship between trademarks and domain names. Like the rest of the stakeholders, we would like to commend the work and collaboration of the STI in submitting its proposals in such a tight timeframe and working under the realisation that the launch of the new gTLDs would be contingent on its recommendations.

In our view, the work of the STI should be evaluated under three pivotal standpoints: substantive, procedural and the effect it has upon the existing legal structures. Before proceeding in analyzing in more detail these three issues, we would like to bring to the attention of both ICANN and the wider Internet community that the recommendations produced by the STI constitute a compromise of all stakeholders involved – the idea of the recommendations were not to please any single constituency or stakeholder group, but instead to produce proposals that would work to the benefit all the constituencies, all the stakeholder groups, and indeed all users of the Internet --- and provide a fair balance for all parties, while serving balance and justice.

 Procedural

The structure of the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team should not be taken lightly. The STI was comprised by representatives of all ICANN’s recognized constituencies (Non-Commercial, Business, Intellectual Property, Registries, Registrars, At-Large and ISPs), adhering this way to ICANN’s mandate for inclusion and representation. The STI has acquired its legitimacy because of this very composition, an issue that was not addressed in the structure of the previous Implementation Recommendations Team (IRT) and one, which has cost much of the IRT’s legitimacy. In this respect, we would like to commend ICANN for promoting a multi- stakeholder approach in the STI and for aligning itself with other multi-stakeholder models in other Internet governance arrangements.

What needs to be noted is that through the STI, ICANN demonstrated its willingness to create an inclusive and representative body and paid attention to the expressed concerns of the Internet community over the composition of the IRT. We would, therefore, like to congratulate ICANN for insisting in a multistakeholder model, the recommendations of which represent the views of a divergent set of actors, promoting different needs and concerns.

 Substantive

While we never wanted these pre- and post-launch mechanisms in the first place, we do fully support the recommendations made by the STI in relation to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TC) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). We note that no new issues were raised in the comments. All of the issues were debated for days, hours and weeks by the STI – and we support the balance on both mechanisms as ones carefully crafted by the STI and fair to all registration authorities, registrants and the trademark owners who seek them.

We would like to briefly respond to some of the issues raised during the STI public comments period.

 Trademark Clearinghouse

One thing has to be clear: the creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) creates a broad new pre-launch set of protections for Trademark Owners which is global in scope, far beyond the territorial limitations of any (and all) federally- and regionally- registered trademarks, and a huge new, innovative and broad policing and protection mechanism for existing trademark

owners as they set out to protect their trademarks in existing gTLDs.

We note that the Clearinghouse also provides efficiency for Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrars as the process of creating Clearinghouses for registered trademarks now shifts from each new gTLD registry and each individual prelaunch to One Company, One Database and One Filing, all overseen by ICANN. As NCUC and NCSG, we believe we gave our fellow ICANN community members exactly what they were looking for --- and absolutely as much as we could within the bounds of “Fair Use” and “Freedom of Expression” protections of words and noncommercial use – principles enshrined in the trademark laws of all communities and UN members.

Thus, we respond briefly to two issues debated very actively and extensively in the STI and raised again in the minority reports and comments: why only federally registered marks and why the specific formula of identical match?

A. The inclusion of only federally registered marks was a very conscious and purposeful one

.

We believe that the decision not to include common law marks in the final structure of the Clearinghouse was wise. Common law marks are particular in that they are recognized by a handful of jurisdictions across the world and, to this end, we foresaw that inclusion would create more problems and produce more burden (legal and administrative). At the same time, common law marks

constitute particular marks, since almost every word that exists in the everyday language can be claimed as a common law mark. To this end, previous registration practices endorsed by Registries have demonstrated that no uniform rule exists concerning common law marks, because of their very particular nature.

For these reasons, the STI deliberated and decided that it would be a better practice to provide Registries and Registrars with the discretion to decide whether they would include common law marks in their pre-registration and Sunrise processes. And the STI’s thinking did not stop there: acknowledging that some common law marks have to receive the recognition that has been given to

them by courts of adjudication, the STI has uniformly decided to include court-validated common law marks within the TC.

B. The inclusion of “identical match” technique as adopted by the STI comes from the IRT Report and incorporates far more than a mere traditional identical match.

Given the uniqueness of domain names, the STI went beyond the definition of identical match seeking to accommodate the situations where textual elements of the mark are replaced by special characters or other symbols. We believe that the STI was very reasonable in its approach, since under traditional principles of trademark law, identical match means the exact visual and lexical depiction of the mark and is not even as broad is it is defined in the STI report.

 Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS)

We never believed that the creation of the URS was justifiable enough – but we went along when we realized that there might be a way to provide “expedited process” “at a very low-cost rate” of “clear-cut” and “slam-dunk” “cases of abuse.” Our goals were to make the URS process: fair, with enough notice, balanced for all, with a fast decision for the applicants (trademark owners) and subject absolutely only to the type of clear-cut cases of abuse that did not require the more lengthy evaluation of court or the UDRP.

The STI, after inordinate time and attention by some of the world leaders in this topic, truly made great strides towards doing so. The balance and fairness of the URS, as presented by the STI, is threatened by a string of requests from one party (namely those who envision themselves as the Complainants, the filers).

One of the main issues addressed during the pubic comments period related to the possibility of the URS to offer an automatic transfer of the domain name to the winning complaining party. This has also been an issue that was extensively discussed within the STI and we decided against it. The STI’s overwhelming majority position to not allow transfer of the domain name after a successful URS proceeding is correct and is in conformity with basic principles of justice and due process.

We need to bear in mind that the URS is not a stand-alone system of adjudication, but one that complements the already existing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The UDRP, which was conceived more than 10 years ago, was structured under the premise to provide a limited range of remedies to trademark owners, namely the transfer or cancellation of the domain name. On the contrary, the URS was conceived as a mechanism, utilised by URS examiners, to evaluate domain name disputes under the more restricted premise of domain name ‘locking’. This was intentional. When the URS was proposed by the IRT as an additional protection mechanism for trademarks in the online world, the idea was that trademark owners would have at their disposal a two-step process – utilization of the URS for the ‘locking’ of the domain name and initiation of the UDRP to achieve its transfer or cancellation. Allowing, thus, an automatic transfer of the domain name after a successful URS process not only opposes the original idea behind the URS but it also displaces the already established process of the UDRP.

Moreover and given that the URS was not meant to allow the automatic transfer of the domain name – and this careful distinction between the URS and UDRP was not crafted by us, but by the IRT. They were correct: an expedited, “slamdunk” process should be very different from the UDRP. Registrars, registries, NCUC/NCSG and IPC agree. This issue was critical to our agreement with the

innovative URS concept.

We note that changing this procedural foundation – entertaining a URS transfer —will contradict the principles of justice and due process. The URS is structured upon the basis that each domain name dispute will be examined on the merits of ‘locking’ and not those of a transfer. In essence, what this means is that we cannot create a system, which promotes the incompatibility between process and remedy – it is contrary to principles of procedural justice to ask URS examiners to deliberate and issue decisions with one remedy in mind and then proceed to enforce a totally different one.

Thus, allowing automatic domain name transfer creates an extra-judicial step in the adjudication process, which is not authorised through the legitimization process of the URS examination.

It is for these issues of legitimacy and procedural justice that an automatic transfer of the domain name cannot take place within the URS.

 The effect of ICANN policies on trademark law

It is perhaps the first time that the balanced proposals of the STI team were in conformity with the basic principles of trademark law. This is an important development considering that all policies relating to trademark protection online should comply with the longstanding principles of trademark laws and regimes. The philosophy of trademark law is consistent with the idea of striking a balance between mark protection and fair use; it is consistent with the notion that essentially what is protected is the goodwill of a product and/or service; it is, finally, consistent with the idea that consumers are not confused, giving them autonomy, however, to determine the parameters of this confusion in line with basic principles of competition law.

The STI took all these issues into consideration when drafting its recommendations. We were all aware of the limitations of trademark law in the Domain Name System (DNS) as we were also aware of the fact that cybersquatters constitute a threat for online trademarks. We worked hard and struck a balance between the legitimate rights of trademark owners and legitimate rights of domain name registrants.

We therefore urge the ICANN staff to stay within the careful compromise crafted by the STI. It makes sense!

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis University of Strathclyde,URS Drafter and author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation”

Kathryn Kleiman, Esq.NCUC Co-Founder, US Trademark Attorney, UDRP Drafter & URS Drafter

Robin D. Gross, Esq. Chair of NCUC, IP Justice Executive Director, and URS Drafter

Wendy Seltzer Fellow with the Silicon Flatirons Center for Law, Technology, and Entrepreneurship at the University of Colorado and with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School

To the rescue of the trademark community: Are trademark owners panicking in light of the STI recommendation?

I have been thinking for quite some time now to write something on the process and the final report, produced by the Special Trademark Issues (STI) team. I was a member of that team, representing the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and - trust me when I tell to all you individual users – I really did my best to ensure that the end result would be far better than the previous IRT recommendation, the ICANN staff proposal – even the UDRP experience.

What we all need to understand from this exercise is that the STI recommendation was one of compromise. The STI was conscious that without a consensus policy document, we would go back to the Staff recommendations or even worse to the IRT. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t even allow ICANN to propose the creation of a policy document for the protection of the trademark community. In reality, we don’t need either policy recommendations. We avoid the pink elephant in the room, which is a UDRP amendment. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world and, therefore, it was a question – do we let the trademark community take again the lead on this or do we engage in discussions and seek to balance (to the most feasible extent and given the political climate within ICANN) the new trademark law policy proposals?

I’ve just finished reading the comments posted on the ICANN website on the STI recommendation. This time around, there seemed to be a change of scene, as trademarks owners flooded the ICANN email servers, asking for more. Microsoft, the CocaCola company, Red Bull and Time Warner are amongst the few big corporations that submitted comments asking additions that the STI debated and rejected. Strong phrases, like the trademark community is ready to “roll up its sleeves to grapple this task” (Time Warner) are only indicative of the panic they face as we move towards proposals that seek to deliver justice and refrain from the current trademark-dominated culture. Where did trademark owners really get the idea from that it is all about protecting them – what about protecting legitimate domain name registrants from obvious and overt Trademark Lawyer abuse and trademark intimidation?

But, I have to admit – reading the comments of trademark owners, mashing up the same arguments was fun. Much of their language had Harry Potter reference – “He Whose Full Name Shall Not Be Spoken”. They hardly referred to terms like legitimate registrants or lawful domain name holders, as if they don’t exist or have any rights. So, let’s make another thing clear. There are legitimate owners out there; there are free speech advocates out there and they deserve appropriate levels of protection. So, dear trademark owners, legitimate registrants are not just “other participants” in the process – they are vital players just like you and they have a name: LEGITIMATE REGISTRANTS.

In line with the STI recommendations, the comments focused on two streams.

For the Trademark Clearinghouse, the trademark community is asking for inclusion of common law rights and any other form of protection you can possibly think of. But, the TC is not meant to be a rights’ protection mechanism – it is supposed to be an efficiency mechanism. Who is ICANN to replace the operation and functions of national offices? Who are the trademark owners to impose common law rights on every single jurisdiction around the world, which does not necessarily understand them? Why shouldn’t trademark owners bear the cost of it – it is a TRADEMARK Clearinghouse – who else should pay for it?

For the URS, the message sent by the trademark community was the following: let’s forget all about justice. Let’s transfer the domain name, even if we don’t design a system to do that and we already have one in place and let’s scrap off the appeals process, per WIPO’s recommendation, as it impedes the speed of the mechanism. Oh, and let’s make another thing clear: the UDRP is not expensive. It was meant to be a cheap mechanism and its filling fee is still cheap. Now, if trademark law firms charge their clients thousands of dollars for a simple complaint, that is not the system’s concern. Just change your trademark law firm, as a complaint should not cost you thousands and thousands of dollars.

I am not trying to advocate that the STI is perfect. However, it is a good document and one that, for the first time, has included the views of the Non-commercial users.

But, if you ask me: what we needed and we still nee is a UDRP amendment – there is really so much we can learn from the UDRP and so much we can fix. Of course, that would mean the trademark community getting exposed to the flaws of the UDRP and the fact that over the past ten years that have received expansive levels of protection.

The more I think about it, the more I realize on thing: we shouldn’t even be talking about trademark law here. We should rather re-name it to “Brand law”, because it is all about these big brands that consider the DNS as their own space.

With this in mind, I was happy to see some of the comments suggesting the unreasonableness of the trademark community and the whole scope of their demands. I was happy to read small businesses expressing their concerns and fears of the trademark domination in the DNS. These are the ones that also deserve our attention.

I guess the only message, if any, I would like to send with this post is: don’t believe that trademarks owners will lose with these new proposals. Whoever reads the comments, please understand that the trademark community is not only well-protected – it is actually over-protected and they should not be asking for higher levels of protection.

WIPO initiates individual fast-track UDRP process.

In the midst of ICANN's decision to ask the GNSO to create proposals on trademark protection mechanisms, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) announced that it will launch a fast-track UDRP process (http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=2328845&LS=EMS332232).

At the Seoul meeting last week, the GNSO authorized the creation of a Special Trademark Interest (STI) team to come up with answers on the ICANN's staff recommendations on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS).

Today WIPO announced its intention to create a fast-track system, similar to the one the STI is working for the URS. “We are not proposing to change the UDRP policy or rules at all. Instead, using the existing framework, WIPO expects to offer a new and more efficient fast-track option based on adjustment to WIPO case practice under the UDRP", Erik Wilbers stated.

The WIPO move is flawed and creates various problems. Here is an account:

1. It is illegitimate: WIPO is acting on its own. It is not acting in its capacity as an inter-governmental organization nor as an ICANN-accredited center. It creates and suggests policy contrary to its role as a service provider. (Would we accept the same by the other ICANN-accredited centers?)

2. Non-transparent: What is the process WIPO followed to create this fast-track system? Which cases will the system cover? What are the parameters of the new system and how will it fit within the UDRP? These are legitimate questions that WIPO has not disclosed.

3. WIPO is justifying the system on loose and arbitrary conclusions: WIPO's process and the conclusions and justifications that lead the organization to create this policy are not evident. Center Director, Erik Wilbers stated: "The domain name system has evolved. We have seen automated registrations, parking and pay-per-click and privacy issues. In addition, we have seen vast increases in domain name registrations. The language rules have also been abused in some cases.”

4. It is non-accountable: WIPO has not consulted all the interested parties. While ICANN should be applauded for following its buttom-up process by creating the STI, WIPO is not seeking the views of the Internet and trademark community.

5. It sets a dangerous precedent: WIPO wants through this fast-track process to deal with the 75% of cases that are not defended. This creates a dangerous precedent and considers all defaults bad faith, continuing the dialectic of the UDRP.

6. It will have a negative impact on registrants: Despite what WIPO states, the new process will negatively impact the already fragile rights of respondents. What about 'trademark lawyer abuse' issues and due process?

7. It will encourage bias: WIPO is known for its bias and the wide discretion of its panels. This process will magnify these problems as trademark owners will use and abuse the system to their advantage.

8. It will suppress free speech: The new process will encourage the creation of a solely commercial DNS. Free speech will be in danger.

9. The system will be gamed: Trademark owners will use the fast-track process and if they lose they will proceed to the standard UDRP.

10. It is anti-competitive: The WIPO process will place the other centers out of the competition. Trademark owners will prefer the new, fast WIPO process - we should anticipate a significant decline in their case law.

ICANN should send an immediate, urgent cease and desist letter to WIPO to withdraw from this process, and wait for the GNSO to submit its recommendations to the ICANN board. If WIPO does not comply, ICANN should proceed to revoke WIPO's UDRP accreditation.

ICANN is sending trademark issues back to the GNSO

Here are some initial thoughts on ICANN's response to the IRT proposal, published a little earlier this month. Please bear in mind that ICANN is requesting GNSO¹s consensus view on the Trademark Clearinghouse and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). These are the views of myself and Kathy Kleiman and a reflection of our sense of events. NCUC will be meeting at length in Seoul to discuss the issues and develop our position for moving forward. To see the new documents, drafted by ICANN staff, please go to [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-u...] for Uniform Rapid Suspension Service and [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-proposed-procedure-t...] for Clearinghouse.

First, some great news. The Globally Protected Marks List (GMPL) is completely gone (or so it appears at this stage). The NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) was against the GPML from the beginning and in White Paper, Kathy Kleiman and myself submitted to ICANN (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...), we further elaborated on the dangers of proceeding with the GPML.


The IP Clearinghouse is now re-named Trademark Clearinghouse. I consider this to be a great development. The term 'IP' encompasses other rights (patents, copyright, etc) and this is not the role of the Clearinghouse ¬ nor should it be. The Clearinghouse is just a repository and ICANN was correct in recommending a new, more restrictive name, following our White Paper (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...).


The ICANN proposal did not follow NCUC¹s recommendation for regional clearinghouses. This was an important issue for nations and for IDNs. One entity cannot know the trademark laws and practices of all countries; but regional registries will understand the laws and nuances of trademark practice in the countries of their region. We expect to see some attention on this issue from GAC members at this meeting.



One clear problem of the Trademark Clearinghouse is its creation of a new, a very new, right to a global common law mark. A common law mark, which is trademark protection although there is no registration, is a very unusual right. It exists largely in common law countries, such as the UK and US. Very few countries allow trademark rights absent trademark registration (e.g., though a national Trademark Office) and even those countries with common law protection have national trademark registration (which all serious trademark registrants will use). The new proposal is problematic in that it allows any name written or expressed on a handkerchief, on a label, on letterhead to be listed and thus to gain global protection – absent any proof of national protection. That's a real problem.

The URS is a different story. It has gone worse.


As always, we have the same question: why create a new system and not stick to the UDRP and amend it accordingly? The UDRP was designed for quick, cheap takedown of domain names. The URS is too quick, too cheap and new proposal fails even to limit cases to the “egregious cases” of domain name use that the IRT had highlighted.

NCUC and the White Paper submitted to ICANN mentioned that the creation of the URS could address Œserial cybersquatting¹, a proposal that was not taken into consideration (https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/new-gtld-overarching-issues/at...). So, the system will be open to gaming and abuse. The idea is for the URS to 'lock' the domain name rather than transfer or cancel it, as it happens with the UDRP. But, here is a possible outcome of this: trademark owners will use the cheap and fast URS to 'lock' the domain name and then proceed to the UDRP (submitting the URS decision as evidence for bad faith) and get transfer of the domain name.

The URS continues to use and justify itself in the dialectic of the UDRP. The new proposal says that the URS standard is similar to the UDRP, but the burden of proof is higher – but it is much, much lower.

Moreover, there is no mention on the legitimate rights or interests of domain name holders and the deadlines are too short ¬ 14 days as opposed to the UDRP¹s 20 days ¬ although there is a possibility for a seven-day extension. Trademark owners will game the system, file on Christmas Eve, and a domain name will be lost before the registrant even knows it is of concern. This should be a huge problem for all registrants: noncommercial, commercial and individual. It's simply not fair; it's not due process.

Further, the respondent is required to submit a statement on truth and accuracy of the submissions, while the trademark owners appears not to be under the same obligation. Why?

Also, beware, one error on your response, and you lose. The new URS proposal also the definition of Œdefault¹ to include non-compliance with any the filling requirements-- even minor, even by a registrant representing himself or herself. This is unfair, considering that mistakes are human and do not necessarily indicate an attempt to abuse the system. Creating such a rule, under the default definition, which is already subjected to UDRP misinterpretations, creates a very bad precedent.

Basically, the URS, as revised, preempts, replaces and displaces the UDRP without any of its balance or fairness. It does not focus on egregious cases, but all garden variety disputes – and gives the trademark owners a nearly automatic win.

This can't be the way we want to open new gTLDs. And mass freezing of domain names under the URS can't be the way we can expect registrants to flock to the new gTLDs registry applicants want to offer.

IRT Recommendation and ICANN's Inconsistencies

It has been a very interesting experiment: the way ICANN has, so far, approached the addition of new gTLDs and the subsequent expansion of the Root. Where almost a year ago the new gTLDs were the contested issue, over the past three months (basically after the ICANN meeting in Sydney and up till now) the debate has shifted to ICANN's proposal on the Rights Protection Mechanisms - basically, the always controversial issue of trademark protection in the DNS. In all truth, it is not really ICANN's proposal per se; the IRT was an initiative of the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and after today (August 4, 2009) it is officially dismantled.

Here is the weird thing, however. Although the meetings in London and New York focused on the trademark protection and the IRT report, the agenda of the similar meetings in Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi does not list any members of the IRT team (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm). Why is that?

To be honest with you - I am not sure. The panel in both meetings (Abu Dhabi and Hong Kong) as well as the presentations were dominated by the ICANN staff. Does this mean that trademark protection was not so much discussed? This is also unclear. People have twitted and re-tweeted (http://twitter.com/kkomaitis) about remote participation not being available in Abu Dhabi and I know for a fact that remote participation was difficult in all previous meetings.

I really have many legitimate questions here: why was it so difficult for ICANN to ensure public participation? If the four meetings were meant to be the on the same issues, why the change of agenda and speakers in the last two meetings? Is ICANN seeing the western hemisphere's issues (NY and London meetings) different than the ones of the other part of the world? Why this inconsistency?

I find it surprising that this process has not stopped and the more I am engaged the more I understand the real power of ICANN. Especially, with the issue of trademark protection and the IRT recommendation, the whole process is purely and simply: ILLEGITIMATE.

STatement on the ICANN NCUC's Charter Proposal

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Individual Statement on ICANN NCUC’s Charter Proposal

Dear ICANN,

It is with great disappointment to see the ICANN Board suggesting a structure for the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC), which is a result of top-down rather than bottom-up coordination. I am also dismayed by the fact that NCUC was the only constituency having been asked to amend its charter so as all other constituencies within ICANN did not feel threatened by the support NCUC has been receiving over the years. Why else would you ask NCUC to amend a charter that has been signed and supported by approximately 80 organizations and individual users across the five regions of the world?

The new model you have suggested is highly problematic and you know it. It is as if ICANN wishes to create within NCUC – the only non-commercial constituency within ICANN able to preserve human rights and non-commercial interests – an internal conflict, which will, subsequently, disunite its members. The strength of the NCUC is that, despite the fact that sometimes we may share different priorities and approaches, in essence, we – as one, conjoined unit, advocate and support the same philosophy: the protection of non-commercial interests on the Internet. We are the civil society in ICANN and our job is to promote the needs of individual users, as expressed by themselves and their representatives. What we all share in common in NCUC is that we want to balance the influence of commercial interests within ICANN and engage in an active dialogue with the other constituencies. We want to find the best possible solutions for the Chinese blogger who fights for his voice to be heard, the child who is daily exposed to various illegal Internet activities, the parents who are concerned about their children – we are here to talk about all those people who should be our first priority – the simple Internet user. The charter we originally proposed would ensure that all voices within the NCUC would be heard; our charter promoted transparency and dialogue; it sought to bring together than distance our philosophies – isn’t that what democracy is all about?

You have to understand that our vision for NCUC is not driven by commercial interests and monies. We have tried to come up with the most democratic solution that will represent and respect the views of all parties concerned. And, I believe we have achieved it. Look at the support that our charter has received – you cannot possibly overlook that. We are reasonable and our proposals are equally reasonable. The fact that they do not conform to other interest groups within ICANN is unfortunate but, at the same time, it is not a legitimate justification for rejecting and re-writing our proposed charter.

I strongly urge you to re-consider the benefits of NCUC’s proposal. Rejecting our proposal will result in transmogrifying a constituency, currently operating under democratic and just procedures, into a body, where lobbying will proliferate. The way you have envisioned NCUC, we will have to spend all our efforts in political manoeuvring rather than in tackling contentious and fundamental issues that are of great concern to all of us. We can really help you, if you let NCUC and its members continue to do their jobs with the same passion and principles.

Thank you.

Sincerely Yours,

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

University of Strathclyde (Law School),

Member of NCUC.

Internet Users Are Being Threatened: The IRT Meeting in London

I’ve just returned from ICANN's new gTLD meeting in London, where the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) presented its skewed vision of protection mechanisms for new gTLDs. London was the second stop of a consultation process, which started in New York and will finish in Abu Dhabi in the beginning of August (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/consultation-outreach-en.htm). The idea behind these consultations, which are open to every interested party, is to give the opportunity to the IRT team to present its recommendations and receive comments. But, in reality, things are far from simple.

The report - both procedurally and substantively - has a lot of problems and legitimizing it will be a difficult task (even for ICANN). Taking into consideration that the composition of the IRT consists mainly of lawyers of big corporations (Time Warner, Richemont), the report will inevitably be biased towards trademark interests. And, it is. Hearing the IRT team talking about the report, there were times that I almost believed they are fighting a larger cause. Their language was careful, their wording well-articulated and they had the ability to answer almost every question. This to me meant only one thing: if one is not familiar with what has been happening over the past ten years, one could easily support the report.

Presumably, this was a new strategy. After a tough New York meeting two days earlier, where many voices attacked both the report and the IRT team, in the London meeting you could see that they have learned their lesson. Their presentations finished with the concluding remarks that the report does not reflect ICANN and is not meant to be a solution (rather it seeks to open the discussion); they often repeated that the team was not given enough time to prepare its recommendations and submit its findings. We all realized that after New York the team was trying to tone things down a bit.

At the same time, however, the IRT team did not back off from its main argument that trademark interests should be of primary concern with the introduction of new gTLDs. Sentence after sentence they were arguing how much trademark owners suffer from bad registrants. I don't think they acknowledged at all that not all registrants are bad. I felt that the team used the most extreme of examples to convince the public that the IRT report is a good piece of policy that needs to be implemented.

And, to a certain extent, their plan did actually work. For example, if you are a parent and you hear that there are domain names promoting child pornography, of course you are going to applaud their work. But, no one really told these people that these constitute criminal activities and can be dealt in other forums; no one really said that trademark owners are not concerned about child pornography, but, in reality, they want to control words, phrases, terms and any linguistic activity that resembles their mark on the Internet; no one really mentioned that many trademark owners suppress free speech on the basis that the domain name is 'harming' their trademark.

Finally, after the long presentation by the IRT, the community was given opportunity to comment. I reiterated NCUC’s position that the IRT Recommendations are flawed and should not be implemented. There were also some excellent comments heard from Paul Keating (trademark lawyer) and Richard Tindal (from the well-known registrar, eNom) on the problems of the IRT report and its biased character.

One of the things that I realized is that we really need to inform the simple Internet user, the registrant, anywhere in the world, about what is happening and what the IRT team is trying to push forward. We need to make them see how they will be affected by this trademark invasion and how the DNS will be in jeopardy of losing its all-inclusive character and become a space reserved for trademark rights.

On route to the IRT meeting in London

Nowadays, UK trains are really fast – 523 something kilometres in 4 hours. I am currently in one such train going from Glasgow to London. Tomorrow I will be attending the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) meeting, at the Royal Institute of Royal Architects at 9am. The plan was to sit and re-remind myself the key points of the report. But there was not enough time for a document that is so confusing and condensed with so many details.

The IRT report is a lengthy piece of 60-something pages and its main intention is to address trademark law issues due to the forthcoming expansion of the Root. It is quite fascinating reading the report and getting the vibes of what the IRT team seeks to do. The recommendation opens with a letter, signed by almost all IRT participants, which lacks inspiration and the ability to bring registrants and trademark owners together to fight cybersquatting and any other malicious activity on the Domain Name System (DNS).

The report repeats old mistakes and distances trademark owners and domain name registrants even further. Throughout the recommendation, the IRT team seeks to make registrants look as if they are the bad guys. It paints a picture in which trademark owners are the good, noble guys working towards the security and stability of the Internet and all rest of us are just bad; we want to harm trademark owners and their interests, we want to make profit from their marks – generally, that there is a conspiracy against them and we are not only part but the driving force behind it. This is not true. Of course, there are those registrations that aiming at harming a trademark; registrations that seek to extort or take advantage of the trademark owners. But, first, we need to bear in mind that this is not something new and, second, it is not that we have not sought to address its conceptual basis.

The IRT recommendation constitutes the result of the efforts of the IP community to provide legal protection mechanisms in light of the addition of new gTLDs. Presumably, the Intellectual Property constituency has been strongly opposing the expansion of the Root as they feared that trademark issues would be left unaddressed; the formation of the IRT team was the compromise ICANN found to ensure that trademark owners would get on board. But, is this really the case?

I think that the IP constituency is not opposed to this expansion as much as they might like us to think. Considering that the expansion of the Root gave the IP Constituency the opportunity not only to participate but also influence decision-making, I cannot help but wonder about the extent of opposition trademark owners have against the new gTLDs. It has been almost ten years since the IP constituency created and imposed the UDRP – a dispute resolution mechanism that would ultimately change the face of trademark litigation. Now they have the opportunity to change it once again.

Ten years ago, trademark owners won a significant fight and have imposed their will on the DNS through the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. Back then, cybersquatting was emerging and it was a completely unknown territory; trademark owners simply did not know how to protect themselves. The UDRP was the experiment that was supposed to cure cybersquatting and all its subsequent manifestations. For the past ten years, four ICANN-accredited centres – through storm and hail – have been developing case law that is now used for various formal and informal statements and as a justification for further policy-making activities.

The IRT report does not take any of these ten years into account. It recognizes the work of the UDRP, but, at the same time, it contemplates that the UDRP is not enough. The reasons the UDRP is not enough and what are the new challenges presented for trademark law are not contemplated into the report. Remember all domain name registrants are bad and, thus, they need to be excluded form the DNS. Indiscriminately and without any legitimacy the report suggests three pillars of protection:

· IP Clearinghouse: seeks to transform and assign ICANN functions equivalent to national trademark offices. No criteria of entry are set and checks and balances are offered.

· Globally Marks Protected List: seeks to give exclusivity and utter control to trademark owners over the DNS. The criteria for entry are arbitrary and do not meet the ones set by courts and the legislature for well-know and/or famous marks.

· Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS): seeks to provide trademark owners with an additional mechanism, creating an extra layer of administrative procedure and further distancing the parties from courts.

I am visiting London in order to debate on these issues. We have a serious problem and not enough time or people to speak about it. If we let this recommendation proceed unchanged, it will not only impact on trademark law itself but it will also inhibit the evolution of the DNS. It will provide trademark owners with the control to create an exclusive and commercial DNS; free speech rights and any other domain name use will be in jeopardy. We need to do something. I will certainly try to….

ICANN in Paris (part deux)

Dear 'What Else is There' Bloggers,

in what can only be characterised as a turning point for trademarks law, the ICANN Board has announced that they have approved, despite serious objections and concnerns, the biggest-ever expansion of the gTLD space. Under this new scheme, ICANN potentially permits everyone to become a registry and run a gTLD.

Under the new draft proposal, which is anticipated to be materialised within the next six to nine months, applicants will have to successfully pass a number of tests and meet a set of criteria before they can be considered eligible to acquire a registry status. These criteria are substantive in nature and will focus on the following issues: string confusion; existing legal rights; morality and public order; and, finally, community objection. ICANN itself will not be the authority assigned to evaluate and examine the applications, but instead, according to Karla Valente, gTLD Program Director at ICANN, disputes will be handled by "an international organisation with experience in IP". After the consultation process, which most likely will take place within the next six months, it is anticipated that the first wave of applications will come in early to mid 2009. The fees involved for a company to become a registry can be as high as $100,000, an amount that, according to ICANN, can be justified in the effort to prevent cybersquatters and other individuals who might wish to abuse domain name registrations from becoming part of this new scheme.

There you have it dear bloggers. Just when you thought that we would not really have to deal again with ICANN, the corporation is in the eye of the storm. First of all, once again ICANN is getting involved in decision-making processes, irrespective of its mandate as a technical organisation. This is old news. However, this time the decision of the Board to allow individuals to register new gTLDs will have serious implications that no one can really forsee. The new scheme opposes the traditional, territorial nature of trademark law and will automatically create an international 'Treaty' regime, something that has consciously been avoided in the past. It will allow trademark owners and especially the ones who hold 'strong' trademarks to automatically acquire international protection over their marks without the necessity of following the long-standing rules of the Paris Convention.

At the same time, if Mrs. Valente's comment proves to be correct, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) will most likely act as the dispute resolution provider that will evaluate the applications (it is afterall the main body with experience in IP). WIPO is an UN-body assigned the task to promote intellectual property issues - so once again domain name holders will found themselves trapped in the interests of trademark owners and their constituencies.

Finally, such a decision will also re-shape the face of trademark law. First of all, generic terms will be allowed to be registered as gTLD - something that is forbidden by trademark regimes. ICANN is no longer promoting the 'first-come, first served' rule, which apart from its disadvantages, at least it was offering a certain amount of procedural justice. The new proposal seems to be promoting an elitistic model - whoever can afford $100,000 will end up having a gTLD.

The scheme has a lot of gaps as it does not answer the crucial question of what will happen in case two applications conerning identical or confusingly similar gTLD extensions come before these panels. Which criteria will then be used for choosing who should become the registry?

These issues open Pandora's Box and create a series of affairs that will certainly have implications upon all users, small and medium sized enterprises as well as entrepreneurs and start-up business ventures. The addressing system is encouraging the creation of an "exclusive club" that seems to be securing and protecting only certain interests.

ICANN does Paris (part une)

Dear "What else is there" bloggers...

This week in Paris is all about ICANN and the discussion have been as controversial as always. ICANN talks legitimacy and transparency, its actions say different and participants try to salvage the remainings of ICANN's recommendations. One issue that has generated a fair amount of controversy has been the recent Westlake Report concerning the role and structure of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).

Historically, the role of ALAC has been in place to serve two purposes:

(i) to provide an opportunity to individual Internet users for participation in ICANN's activities; and,

(ii) to be a vehicle for ICANN's accountability to the Internet community in accordance with its core values and its bottom-up, consensus-based way of operating.

The aim of the report focused on whether ALAC should exist in ICANN and, if so, whether there are any changes that are required within its structure. The Westlake Report concluded the following:

1. ALAC should continue to contribute actively to ICANN's policy development processes;

2. ICANN's outreach activities must be made consistently relevant to the needs of individual Internet users throughout the world; and

3. ALAC must ensure that it is seen within ICANN as being a valuable component of the total structure.

The report is highly flawed and it does not reflect the organizational problems that are inherent in ICANN. It starts from the wrong premise that ICANN is involved or should be for that matter in policy making and from this perception it seeks to identify the role of ALAC within its structure. Moreover, the report still denies any voting ability for ALAC in ICANN's board, something that lies at the core of individual users' misrepresentation in ICANN. Another issues with reading the report is that the language used seems to be placing the burden of effort to ALAC to ensure that they maintain a significant role within ICANN. The report recognizes that the steps that ICANN has taken thus far are sufficient and that there is a noticeable progress of support that ICANN has provided ALAC. This is not really the case as ICANN has not really substantially changed any of its charters to acknowledge more rights to constituencies such ALAC that merely represent everyday users.

At the same time, Westlake consultants were not able to convince the participants on the Monday session about the conclusions of their report. On the question whether they have considered the prospect of end users having voting powers within the ICANN board, the response was "Now, our review was a review of the At-Large Advisory Committee. Individual Internet users, the question of whether they should vote members of the board, we believe, in fact, bypassed our review, was beyond the scope of our review of the At-Large Advisory Committee". This answer implies that this issue was not even considered and, once again, it proves that even independent reports seem to be not so independent after all and are merely serving ICANN's needs.

Finally, although the report identifies that RALOs do not really correspond to the global population of Internet users and that the Asia-Pacific region is misrepresented, still it failed to mention the implication for African countries and the lack of support that RALOs currently receive from ICANN. 

That is what has been happening in only one of the sessions of the ICANN meeting. The future now of the Westlake report rests on ICANN's board, which I do not see changing its position to offer more rights to individual users or ALAC for that matter. The conclusions are yours.

To be continued.....

GigaNet Workshop - Paris, June 2008

Another great initiative in the form of a workshop has been generated by the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet). The workshop will be held in Paris, prior to the ICANN meeting, on the morning of 23 June 2008. The aim of the workshop is to bring together academics and scholars to discuss issues pertaining to the field of Internet Governance. Its thematic agenda focuses on: "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction". The call for paper is now open and the deadline is set for 15 April 2008. More information about the workshop can be found at: http://www.igloo.org/community.igloo?r0=community&r0_script=/scripts/announcement/view.script&r0_pathinfo=%2F%7B58dacb33-31ea-4219-9124-89a75ffe71d0%7D%2FAnnouncements%2Fgenerala%2Fgiganetaca&r0_output=xml

ICANN: Declaration of Independence

BBC News reports that ICANN has made a plea to the US Department of Commerce to become fully independent. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7205609.stm). These news come after many years of controversy surrounding the corporation and its affiliation and influence by the US Government.
In 2006, ICANN entered a Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US Government agreeing to collaborate in the "developement of the mechanisms, methods, and procedures necessary to effect the transition of Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS) to the private sector". (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/jpa/icannjpa_09292006.htm) This Agreement is due to terminate at the end of September 2009.
According to the President of ICANN, Paul Twomey the agreed objectives between ICANN and the US DoC were "essentially complete". And he added: "Has the process of the MoU and JPA towards building a stable, strong organisation which can do this transition, has that been successful? The board is effectively saying yes".
But, what does this mean? In reality ICANN's independence is something that many have been wishing for. However, will it work? Now, this is a whole different story.
With the Internet Governance debate ongoing, ICANN still tries to place itself and define the scope of its authority on the Internet Governance arena. What this independece implies and, better yet, who will actually be responsible for monitoring ICANN's actions?
According to Mr. Twomey governments would still be able to inform the corporation about developments concerning public policy issues, but they would not be able to influence or dictate ICANN's developement.
If that is the case, this approach will raise a number of new questions. ICANN is already under attack over its 'masonic' structure, secretive meetings, non-inclusive role and generally the way it has been hanlding issues pertaining to the addressing system, like for instance its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, the addition of new gTLDs in the addressing system and WHOIS concerns. With no one to keep ICANN under scrutiny and with issues of Internet Governance and the role of the private sector still being far from resolved, the corporation can acquire more power and control than it currently holds.
Even though it is still very early to make assumptions, one can not help but wonder whether we will find ourselves thinking that the old status of ICANN would actually be better than the proposed new one.

Because some things never change...

It has been a very long time since we have heard any news on ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It has actually been even longer, since the first study on domain name disputes - Fair.com? (http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf) - by Michael Geist was publised and showed a rather concerning pattern of trademark owners winning in most of the cases. The results of Geist's study were quite revealing: the success rate for complainants of all the cases brought before WIPO panels was, at the time, 82.2%. This relevation brought to light the inadequecies of the system and raised concerns over various issues such as forum shopping.
However, almost seven years after the study, a new report comes to light and shows ICANN's incapacity, inability or indiference to address issues that have constituted procedural flaws within the UDRP ever since its inception.
In a very recent article, the Wall Street Journal has reported that in 2007 domain name disputes have reached an all-time high (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/01/11/domain-name-disputes-at-an-all-time-high/). According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), in 2007 domain name disputes have reached a 2,156 fraction, making it its most successful year yet. Of all these cases, 85% of trademark owners have prevailed.
Even though we can not safely argue that this high percentage is unsubstantiated, still this number is rather alarming.
With the number of dispute resolution providers dropping (since the creation of the UDRP ICANN has lost two of its service providers and has only added one), WIPO is still receiving the majority of the disputes and for obvious reasons. So what is the conclusion? Just because the criticism against the UDRP has gone quite, it doesn't mean that the system is functioning properly. The UDRP obviously still suffers from procedural and substantive issues; and, since businesses and entrepreneurs are depending on domain names to build their businesses online, it is about time we start addressing and answering some very crucial questions - what is - in reality - the legal nature of domain names?