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

The Czech Arbitration Court is suggesting what in essence is a UDRP amendment

Following the really bad precedent set by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the proposal for a fast-track UDRP process, the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has proposed changes that in essence amend the substantive and procedural rules of the UDRP. The Non-Commercial Users Constituency has submitted the following comments:

December 11, 2009

Dear ICANN Staff,

The undersigned members of the NCSG STI Drafting Team submit that the request from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) cannot be granted at this time for the strongest of procedural and substantive reasons.

1. The ICANN public notice for comments has misled the ICANN community and the public. This is not a mere change to supplemental rules for a mere alternative page limit. This is the adoption of an “Expedited Decision” analogous to the URS system, recently created by the STI. In October, the ICANN Board sent the URS back to the GNSO because **expedited decision making processes involve substantive rights and must be subject to the procedures and policy-making processes of the GNSO and its Council.*** The same concepts, and requirements, apply here.

2. There is nothing supplemental or merely procedural about these proposals. These proposals involve substantive change which will limit the rights of domain name registrants. As the just-completed STI URS recommendations show, expedited decision-making processes bring to bear serious and important issues of fairness and due process. The URS drafting team found that defining the elements of the UDRP claim precisely – and with the clear inclusion of safe harbors (the URS’ modelled on the Nominet example) constitute critically important factors in a rapid decision-making process.

Further, as the STI agreed, rapid reviews, especially in the case of defaults, should include additional procedures to protect and benefit the domain name registrants who may not even know the UDRP or URS proceedings are taking place. Such protections were placed into the STI’s just-completed URS -- but could not have been seen by the CAC which requested its recommendations (modeled on the IRT Report alone) prior to the results of the Board-requested STI work).

3. The UDRP is meant to be a uniform system and CAC’s amendment will operate against that uniformity. CAC is suggesting changes to create new substantive language that is not in conformity with the original scope of the UDRP. The uniformity of the UDRP is based on all UDRP providers conducting the same type of substantive review. The CAC new process breaks this uniformity seeking to create a whole new mechanism.

Thus, the CAC proposal raises serious competition concerns. It is unfair that one UDRP service provider should move forward with an advantageous new process that may lure complainants away from other forums. The UDRP was meant to be a uniform system, and accordingly, rapid decision rules, as they apply to existing gTLDs, must take place through the GNSO and apply equally to all providers.

4. The CAC proposal certainly will impact non-commercial and free speech domain names. As the CAC proposal does not include safe harbors for domain name registrants, its proposals do not include the balance of fair use and due process which constitute the basis of the newly-formulated and newly-recommended URS.

5. Further, the new CAC proposal is premised on inaccurate assumptions about default and domain names – to the substantive detriment of good faith domain name registrants. The CAC proposal presumes bad faith at default – despite the very short timeframe for notice and response that have characterized the UDRP since its outset (a timeframe far faster than court, and even than most administrative proceedings). The CAC proposals undercut the basic fairness of the UDRP, and the fairness and balance of the newly-introduced URS.

Overall, CAC is an accredited ICANN UDRP provider and should comply within a specific mandate. Despite CAC’s effort to present these changes as part of its supplemental rules, in reality they are substantive and will affect the future of the UDRP.

Such a submission, particularly by a UDRP provider so new to the UDRP process (in operation for only a year) and taking place while the URS was under serious consideration and substantive re-evaluation, will be viewed by all as unauthorized, unfair and seriously flawed.

Going Forward:
At a minimum, ICANN must reissue the comment period with a public notice that puts the public on notice that real rights – registrant rights – are being impacted under the UDRP pursuant to the change of policy being proposed by CAC.

The far better answer is for ICANN to strongly urge CAC to return to ICANN after a full review of the new URS. As the URS Drafting Committee, the STI, found and the UDRP Final Drafting Team before it, Registrants are entitled to the protections, fairness and due process. The STI 's URS came through a GNSO policy-making process. In addition, the URS proposal offers a heavily researched, carefully written and painstakingly edited rapid decision process from an expert and diverse group of trademark attorneys and technical experts representing Trademark Owners, Registrants, Registrars, Registries and individuals. It is a balance that adds to and rounds out the IRT recommendations, on which the CAC proposal was narrowly based.

The URS text, and its process of creation, should help inform and guide the CAC rapid decision process.

Overall, the procedural and substantive proposals suggested by the CAC must be legitimate revisions to the UDRP. These changes, and all major changes in the UDRP procedures, must be a part of ICANN’s bottom-up policy process undertaken through ICANN’s Policy Development Process (PDP).

Whatever happens next, this proceeding, as designated, must not continue. Suspending this proceeding for further work will benefit the entire ICANN community -- trademark owners, registrants, individual, registrars and registries, and CAC.

It also will serve the integrity of the ICANN process, and the UDRP, with a full and fair process.


Very sincerely yours,




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

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

URS Drafter and author of the book “The Current State of Domain Name Regulation” (University of Strathclyde)

Robin D. Gross, Esq.

Chair of NCUC, IP Justice Executive Director, and URS D

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.

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….

Let's boycott the IRT report

So what is the case with trademark protection on the Internet? Is it some big conspiracy or are we really facing an overt expansion of trademark law? Let's see where we were and where we are now.

Ten years ago a big problem was presented by the massive use of the Internet. Along with P2P technology threatening copyrighted creations, domain names and their use by cybersquatters threatened trademarks. Cybersquatting occurred almost at the same time the Clinton Administration decided to privatize the Internet and create ICANN. The White Paper instructed ICANN to create the UDRP as a means to resolve these abusive domain name registrations that really harmed trademark rights. The UDRP was supposed to be the result of a legitimization process that equally took into account the rights of registrants, whilst acknowledging the unique nature of domain names.

In reality, the UDRP was a political game. Trademark owners gave a united front and exercised their political influence to create a system they would be able to control as much as possible. Non-commercial interests were squeezed in a subparagraph and were not given due attention. No one paused to think that, unless the system was scrutinized and properly administered, it would easily span out of control. That is where we are now. The UDRP is a biased system, controlled entirely by trademark owners.

And, it is not enough. It was never really enough for the trademark community. The IRT report is a perfect example. They want more-it is not enough. The report covers three major issues - the IP Clearinghouse, the Globally Protected Marks List, and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System - all of which seek to expand their rights and interests. It is really an issue of arrogance as trademark owners try to make all registrants look bad. Not all of them are bad and not all of them are cybersquatters. There are so many legitimate domain names that are so vital for the evolution of the Internet. They exist because registrants fight for them; we have to show them our solidarity and reject this report.

The full IRT report can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-final-report-trademark-protection-29may09-en.pdf

Find also the NCUC comments on the report at: http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/