ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[2gtld-guide]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

CORRECTED: US Industry Comments to the Second Draft DAG - gTLD Program and Process

  • To: <2gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: CORRECTED: US Industry Comments to the Second Draft DAG - gTLD Program and Process
  • From: "Marc-Anthony Signorino" <MSignorino@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:57:57 -0400

 <<COTP DAG2 ICANN gTLD Coalition Letter v.3.doc>> 
The Coalition for Online Trademark Protection

To:             ICANN (2gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx)
Re:             US Industry Comments to the Second Draft DAG - gTLD
Program and Process
Date:           April 13, 2009

NB:  The full comments are also attached above; they contain footnotes
that may not appear in the text of this email.  They are to be
considered our official submission to ICANN on this proceeding.

Dear Dr. Twomey and Mr. Dengate Thrush: 

The Coalition for Online Trademark Protection, comprising of
corporations, trade associations and business groups that represent
thousands of multinational companies and millions of employees and
Internet users, submit these comments related to the Second Version of
the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG) and the new generic Top Level Domain
(gTLD) program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the on-going process
regarding the DAG.  We are pleased to see the level of attention that
ICANN is affording this significant milestone in its history and are
greatly encouraged to see that ICANN has established the Implementation
Review Team (IRT) to develop intellectual property rights-protection
mechanisms for the new gTLD roll-out.  We are hopeful that the
recommendations will be given full and thoughtful consideration by the
ICANN Board and community.  At the same time, we would like to take this
opportunity to reiterate some of our prior concerns and highlight new
ones that have arisen as this process has continued to unfold.

The American business community holds fast to the concept that the
stability of the Internet as a global platform for eCommerce is a core
concern for businesses world-wide.  We look forward to working with
ICANN to ensure this stability, especially in these times of great
economic uncertainty.  

Executive Summary

ICANN's decision to increase the number of gTLDs has brought a number of
issues to the attention of the international business community, and we
would like to take this opportunity to address them.  Most
significantly, our concerns lie in three significant areas: 

*       Protecting consumers across the new gTLDs;
*       Protecting brand-owners across the new gTLDs; and
*       The effect of the new gTLD program on ICANN and the Internet.

Our comments below highlight these three areas.  We suggest that before
ICANN proceeds with the new gTLD Program and Process, it should:

*       Set aside the flawed economic study submitted to ICANN in March
2009 and undertake a comprehensive, empirical economic study of the
domain name marketplace, as mandated by the ICANN Board in 2007, as well
as an extensive evaluation of whether new gTLDs are needed in the first
place given the record of existing new gTLDs;
*       Establish criteria for the success of ICANN's new gTLD program
in the proposed first round - including Internationalized Domain Name
TLDs - before moving forward;
*       Modify the roll-out of the new gTLD program to the limited
number of cc IDN TLDs (once the study has been completed and criteria
established), treating these cc IDNs as a form of pilot; and
*       Limit further roll-out until sufficient safeguards are in place
to protect Internet users, businesses, and brand-owners alike from any
existing and expected acts of cyber-fraud. 

Until these issues and recommendations can be adequately addressed, we
respectfully request that ICANN delay the launch of the new gTLD
program.

Protecting Consumers Across the New gTLDs

The Internet exists for its users, as well as because of its users.
Protecting them from harm is incredibly important not only for their
sake, but also for the sake of all who create content, do business and
facilitate the Internet's day-to-day operations on the network.

Preventing Consumer Confusion   

ICANN has announced its intention to move forward with plans for
creating a considerable number of new generic TLDs, including
Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).  One of ICANN's justifications
for this project is to introduce 'competition' into the domain name
system (DNS).   Currently, there are over 240 top level registry strings
(known as top level domains or TLDs) that include generic names (gTLDs)
such as .com, .net; .info; .biz; .mobi; as well as country-code TLDs
(ccTLDs), such as .us, .uk, .it, and .cn.  Today, in these top level
domains, over 175 million domain names already offer significant choice
and diversity to end registrants.  

ICANN's proposed approach to introducing further new TLDs could lead to
the creation of over 1,000 or more new gTLDs over the next three years.
This course of action would significantly raise the risk of creating
confusion in the minds of consumers as to where on the Internet they can
find a business or their desired product.  By making it increasingly
difficult for consumers to enjoy their Internet experience, frustrated
consumers would be less likely to engage in eCommerce - at a time when
many businesses with online presences can ill afford reduced traffic.

Further, there is a significant concern about "community
based/sponsored" TLDs that may propose to represent limited geographic
areas (such as cities or regions) and commercial communities such as
those that that propose to represent certain industry sectors where
reliability and security are paramount concerns, such as healthcare or
financial services.  The concern surrounds the vetting process of these
proposed TLDs and whether or not sufficient public safety concerns will
be addressed and whether critical consumer privacy and data security
safeguards will be put in place to protect consumers.  We urge ICANN to
hold off on accepting applications for these TLDs and focus on the much
greater need for both generic IDN TLDs and country-code IDN TLDs.

Protecting consumers against cyber-fraud

With the increased number of gTLDs, the opportunity for cyber-crime to
increase is significant.  By using domain names to exploit the trust
that consumers have in legitimate brands and trademarks, cyber-squatters
are able to harm consumers by creating confusion about which web site is
the legitimate brand-holder's site that provides the goods or services
the user is seeking.  Other serious problems exist when these
illegitimate sites are used for abusive purposes, such as sending
malware to infect a user's computers with viruses and software to steal
personal information or for the sale of unwanted counterfeit goods. 

The magnitude of the problem is shocking.  The overall number of domain
names under existing gTLDs has more than doubled since 2003, and the
growth of cyber-squatting has exceeded that pace.  According to
MarkMonitor's Brandjacking Index Report from Spring 2007,
cyber-squatting increased 248% in 2006.  This is of significant concern
as cyber-squatting is a tool that criminals use in phishing attacks
against unsuspecting consumers.  A study released by Gartner, Inc. in
2007 revealed that phishing attacks in the United States alone cost
Internet users over $3.2 billion.  The problem is growing, with no signs
of slowing down.  The survey found that 3.6 million adults lost money in
phishing attacks in the 12 months ending in August 2007, as compared
with 2.3 million the previous year.  With the projected number of new
gTLDs in the proposed program, the costs of fraud to unsuspecting
consumers will undoubtedly eclipse that figure.

ICANN's efforts must include consideration of the millions of Internet
users who use the World Wide Web to work, play and learn.  One
recommendation we strongly suggest would have ICANN launch a process,
similar to the IRT process, to identify best practices and mandatory
rapid response and remediation procedures in appropriate circumstances
to minimize consumer harm from fraud and malicious conduct.  Strong
consumer protection starts with creating tools to thwart brand
infringement and protect against such potential and probable abuses in
new gTLDs and in IDNs.

Protecting Brands Across the New gTLDs

There is great concern in the business community that ICANN has not
adopted adequate safeguards against systemic brand abuse in new gTLD
registrations (including both ASCII and non-ASCII (or IDN) TLDs) prior
to moving forward with the new gTLD Program.  The current system for
addressing brand abuse is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (UDRP).  Currently, there are almost 250 TLDs available to
public, private and governmental institutions.  Trademark owners are
already compelled to engage in defensive registrations to prevent
phishing, fraud, and trademark infringement.  

As mentioned above, cyber-squatting is not only a problem that impacts
consumers and business.  The practice is estimated by the Coalition
Against Domain Name Abuse to cost brand owners worldwide over $1 Billion
dollars a year as a result of diverted traffic, the loss of hard-earned
trust and goodwill, and the increasing enforcement expense of protecting
consumers from Internet-based fraud.  Adding new gTLDs without adding
the proper tools to protect Internet users and brand owners will only
exacerbate the problem.

In sum, the ICANN proposal would vastly increase the costs associated
with defensive registrations and mark protection, which are already
extremely expensive for trademark owners, even where there are only a
finite number of TLDs.  We believe that, by adopting the following
recommendations, ICANN can strengthen the security and integrity of the
DNS while simultaneously protecting consumers and brand-owners.

The current and future quality of the WHOIS system

Continued access to an accurate WHOIS is essential to protect the
stability and security of the Internet and to maintain confidence of
consumers in the integrity and safety of eCommerce.  Examples of
essential characteristics of WHOIS:

*       Free, accurate, and publicly available access to WHOIS, to
quickly identify the registrant of abusive domain names, is critical to
the future of the gTLD program; 
*       Applicants committed to maintaining and enforcing WHOIS
requirements, including a centralized or "thick" WHOIS;  and
*       True applicant information in proxy registrations should be
escrowed until the application is verified against an IP Registry.  A
mechanism that allows access to the data under the defined conditions
should be developed and implemented in a uniform manner.

The application process for new gTLDs should require applicants to
commit to participate in an open and accurate WHOIS system.  Proxy and
private registrations frustrate the efforts of trademark owners to
identify domain name registrants and should be strongly discouraged, if
not prohibited.  The growth of online fraud and, in particular,
phishing, necessitates stronger action at the registration level to
ensure that criminals can be quickly identified and stopped.  Even if
applicants are not prohibited from anonymously registering domains, at a
minimum trademark owners must be able to identify expeditiously the
actual entity or individual responsible for registering a domain name
that conflicts with one of their marks.  

Lack of tools for brand owners to protect their brands and their
customers

As was mentioned above, we are encouraged by ICANN's establishment of
the IRT to help move the discussion on protecting intellectual property.
We will work with the members of the IRT to recommend policies and
practices that ICANN may implement in the new gTLD rollout to achieve
this goal.  We strongly urge ICANN to give the recommendations put forth
by the IRT, national governments, consumer protection groups, and
industry substantial weight in its deliberations on how to proceed.

To that point, we stand behind our comments in our previous filing of
the first-round comments, but we would like to take this opportunity to
reiterate our concerns and suggestions so that they may be included in
the second-round record.

Currently, there are few options for brand owners, other than
self-policing, use of the U.S. Anti-Cyber-Squatting Act, and the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to protect their brands
over the Internet.  To promote the success of the proposed gTLD program,
new tools and safeguards could be created by ICANN.  We strongly suggest
that such mechanisms should be in place before the new TLD application
window opens, and all registry applicants should be required to follow
standardized processes.  

One possibility includes a centralized registry of qualified names that
would act as a clearing house for "certified" brand-holders, based on
objective criteria.  This no-cost "global brands reserved list" would be
a centralized, validated reserve list of brands that have developed
worldwide recognition, documented by objective criteria, such as
national registration.  This would enable trademark owners to make sure
that they can put their own names "on hold" without being forced to
register in all these new places either during the so-called "sunrise
period," which would be hugely expensive, or after.  Further, this
global brands reserved list could also serve to prevent third-party
registration of confusingly similar strings at the second level.  ICANN
implicitly recognizes that additional costs will be imposed on trademark
owners because it creates a Top-Level Reserved Names List consisting
exclusively of ICANN-related names.  We believe that ICANN must offer
the same solution to brand owners.

We note specifically that this list would not constitute a famous mark
list but would be open to any trademark owner who could meet certain
objective criteria.  For instance, the trademark owner would need to
establish that they own a national trademark registration in at least
one of the five ICANN geographic regions.  The trademark owner must also
demonstrate through documentation that their marks have been the subject
of widespread cybersquatting as established by successful UDRP
proceedings or other proceedings brought in national courts of competent
jurisdiction.

Once these hurdles have been met by a trademark owner, their name would
be placed on the reserved list.  A prospective applicant who wishes to
register a name on the list would have their application automatically
flagged, at which point the applicant can bring an expedited
administrative proceeding to allow its name to move forward.  This
proceeding would be administered by the arbitration and mediation center
of the World Intellectual Property Organization, which has already been
identified by ICANN as a potential dispute resolution service provider
(DRSP) and has established expertise in resolving trademark and domain
name disputes. 

In determining whether trademark rights are implicated, the use of
algorithms (based solely on visual similarity) in and of themselves, are
not a panacea for the protection of intellectual property rights.
Algorithms alone cannot be dispositive of string similarity.  There must
be manual reviews to ensure adequate protection of marks.  Visual, aural
and semantic similarity should be emphasized in determining whether the
registration of various domain names may be implicated.  

Lastly, the UDRP process can be slow and cumbersome.  Trademark owners
may suffer harm before they can fully vindicate their rights in a UDRP
dispute. To address this concern, some stakeholders have proposed that
ICANN consider implementing a notice and take-down procedure for
infringing second-level names based on established criteria in the new
gTLDS, similar to the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Such an
expedited take down mechanism could be implemented by immediately
locking down the domain name to ensure it cannot be transferred during
the challenge period.   The process should include appropriate checks
and balances to ensure that the registrant has advanced notice before
any domain is placed on reserve or transferred.  The registrant should
be provided with the opportunity to file a counter notice and bring an
administrative challenge at the World Intellectual Property
Organization, which might adopt a loser pays model to ensure that the
mechanism is used judiciously by all parties. 

Consideration should also be given to the post-delegation procedure
proposed by WIPO to allow a party to institute a challenge against
registries or possibly registrars who engage in abusive activity after a
new TLD has been awarded.  In the absence of such a self-help procedure,
both businesses and consumers will be left to rely on ICANN to
de-accredit its contracting parties, which is a remedy, based on past
experience, that would occur under the most extreme of circumstances.
Given ICANN's reluctance to enforce its existing contracts against
registries and registrars who directly violate the "compliance with
laws" provision in their contracts by engaging in domain name tasting,
kiting and cybersquatting, a new administrative remedy would be a
necessary tool for businesses and consumers to avoid the abuses that
will likely occur in the new TLD spaces.


The cost of dispute resolution procedures

Currently, utilizing the UDRP for brand protection is costly and time
consuming; under the proposed gTLD Program, the UDRP as a remedy will be
impractical and cost prohibitive with the possibility of dozens to
hundreds of new gTLDs to police.

As far as brand protection in resolving string contention in the new
gTLD application process, auctions should be avoided and other improved
mechanisms for resolution should be developed.  If there are cases in
which an auction is necessary, bidders should be required to escrow an
amount large enough to deter fraudulent or defaulting bidders.  Further,
the utilization of auctions and resultant revenues to ICANN need to be
assessed regarding implications for affecting ICANN's non-profit status.

As mentioned above, given the number of expected TLDs in the first-round
alone, the cost-potential for brand-holders to protect their brands is
daunting.  To help alleviate this burden in the UDRP process, prevailing
brand-holders in a dispute should not experience any fees or costs in
protecting their brand.  This could be accomplished by extending the
loser-pays approach of the dispute resolution process to cover all costs
and expenses, including attorney fees as well as filing fees paid to the
DRSP.  This will result in a more fair and equitable dispute resolution
process, with the added benefit of curbing registrations used for
harassment purposes.

Strengthening the dispute resolution system

To promote the success of ICANN's proposed gTLD Program, efficient,
reasonably priced, and standardized mechanisms must be available to
resolve conflicts regarding second level registrations.  The UDRP should
be reviewed and enhanced as appropriate to respond to planned expansion
of the TLD space.  Specifically, new registry agreements should ensure
operator and registrars are obligated to adopt and enforce obligations
of any UDRP enhancements.  Also, streamlined procedures for identifying
and challenging registrations of strings previously found to be
infringing/confusingly similar should be implemented.  
Further, it is critical that dispute resolution service providers'
(DRSP) decisions should be final and binding on ICANN, rather than be
viewed as an "expert determination" to be considered by ICANN as a
factor in the evaluation of the gTLD application.  Further, objections
and responses should be made public.  To ensure an open and transparent
DRP, the rules and procedures that DRSPs will use should be made
available and open to public comment.  Lastly, objectors in dispute
resolution proceedings should not be forced to give up their legal
rights, specifically including the right to seek redress in court.  


The Effect of the New gTLD Program on ICANN and the Internet

Concern over the need for new gTLDs

Given the unease over the unintended consequences for Internet users and
brand-holders alike, a significant question arises over whether or not
new gTLDs are needed in the first place.  ICANN's previous expansion of
gTLDs has largely failed to increase the number of registrants that
ostensibly justified the creation of new gTLDs.  The .COOP, .AERO,
.MUSEUM, and .JOBS gTLDs, for example, have no more than 10,000
registrations each.  Other gTLDs, such as .info and .biz have
significant numbers of 'defensive' registrations. Our previous comments
made note of the fact that there had been no evidence to suggest a
compelling demand for the expansion of new TLDs.  

To that point, the ICANN Board directed its President more than two
years ago to commission a comprehensive study on the economics of the
domain registration marketplace.  In March 2009, Professor Dennis
William Carlton and Professor Katherine Dusak Miller submitted two
reports to ICANN that purports to satisfy the Board's request.

The report correctly addresses the need to protect intellectual property
rights, as well as addressing the concerns of potential harm to
consumers from confusion, such as requiring "inefficient 'defensive'
registrations of domain names on new gTLDs." However, the report
contains a number of fatal flaws.

Our first concern was how both reports were undertaken, a full three
years after the Board made its request for a report.  The report that
was eventually delivered was devoid of empirical data and lack of
statistical analysis; yet the report was conclusory in nature,
supporting ICANN staff's contentions that "more competition is better."
In doing so, the report was devoid of empirical data and lack of
statistical analysis to support the purported conclusions. 

Further, the report was dismissive of comments and concerns raised by
NTIA and DoJ and industry's concerns for consumer safety and well-being.
By focusing on competition in general, and not the harm to consumers
from online fraud practices such as cybersquatting and phishing that
will increase due to the increase of market entrants, the report leaves
ICANN blind as to the final net affect on the Internet-using public.
With regards to intellectual property protection, the report cites the
lack of evidence submitted by "DOJ and others" as to the likely costs to
trademark holders, but ignores evidence filed by other experts in the
area, such as MarkMonitor in their filings, as well as publicly
available materials.

It may be further noted that ICANN's goal of promoting competition
within the DNS as outlined by the JPA was intended to create more
registries, in order to represent more choice for registrants and
consumers.  This report seems to avoid that distinction, focusing
briefly on ICANN's recently stated goals of increasing the number of
gTLDs.  We believe that flooding the market with these new gTLDs without
the requisite safeguards and consumer protections will lead to fear,
uncertainty and lack of confidence in the safety of using the Internet,
and ultimately of ICANN's management of the DNS.  

Our final concern is with the lack of academic rigor exemplified in the
report, as there is a dearth of statistical data or empirical facts
substantiating the conclusions put forth.  This misstep significantly
undercuts the report's utility to ICANN, as well as its credibility.
ICANN staff has acknowledged these difficulties with the report and the
position it has placed ICANN within the larger Internet community, and
has wisely put the report up for public comment.  We will provide ICANN
with further comments and specific data in that proceeding.  

We strongly suggest that a complete and through economic analysis be
undertaken by an independent, outside consulting firm of international
reputation, which would focus on the critical issues demanded by the
Board in its 2006 request.  Further, this new report should focus on the
affect of the rollout on both consumers and intellectual property
owners, backed by empirical analysis and the wealth of publicly
available data.  

We would also recommend the report devote significant attention to the
impact of releasing the new gTLDs without the appropriate pricing
mechanisms, consumer safeguards and intellectual property protections in
place.  A report prepared by Michael Palage for the Progress and Freedom
Foundation asserts that the negative externalities placed on both
industry and consumers would be tantamount to a new "tax on the
Internet."  Both businesses and consumers alike would be forced to
account for the cost of new defensive registrations and the increased
expenses concomitant with consumer fraud protections.

Such a study would be invaluable for crafting a new gTLD launch in a way
that maximizes the competitive benefits and decreases costs on
consumers.  We strongly recommend the study should be started
immediately and prior to moving forward with the new gTLD Program.  If
competition is found to be lacking, the next logical step would be to
assess potential causes of the lack of competition, as well as address
remedies and their impact on the Internet community as a whole.

We also have concerns with the price-cap report, and the recommendations
it makes regarding whether price caps or ceilings should be implemented
as part of the process for introducing new gTLDs.  The report states
that the imposition of price caps on registries for new gTLDs could
inhibit the development and marketplace acceptance of new gTLDs.  While
we would agree in general that price caps in a perfect marketplace would
inhibit competitive and innovative pricing, it is obvious that the
marketplace described by the new gTLD rollout is far from perfect.  

An example drawn from the report that justifies its conclusion mentions
that the new gTLDs would face competition from existing TLDs such as
.com, .net,  as well as sponsored TLDs such as .museum and .travel.  The
distinction must be made, however, that in the case of the established
gTLDs, some new gTLDs could de facto encourage massive growth of
defensive registrations, and without price caps, leverage extortionate
rents from businesses by playing on their fears of brand dilution or the
potential for consumer fraud.  At the very least, a responsible tack
would be to introduce pricing protections for bona fide defensive
registrations and renewals.  This would address the absence of
market-based controls with respect to defensive registration, based upon
standardized criteria for such registrations (e.g., as evidenced by
redirection to existing site or election to register as non-resolving
name). 

In the example of sponsored TLDs, it was established early on that those
TLDs would be maintained by recognized stewards of their respective
communities, and would not be amenable to price caps, as they serve a
finite and discrete community.  In the .museum case, the domain is
limited to bona fide museums, their professional associations and
individual members of the museum community.  The .travel domain is
managed by the Tralliance Corporation, who is partnered with the
non-profit Travel Partnership Corporation, which is comprised of leading
travel and tourism associations.  In these situations, price caps are
recognized to be inappropriate as the need to recover domain management
costs are high and the possibility of abuse is low due to industry
self-policing.  

However, with the potential addition of hundreds of new gTLDs in the
near term, the possibility of abuse is heightened as exceedingly broad
gTLDs may be adopted, compounded by ICANN's already-stretched compliance
resources.  While we will address the issue of price caps in detail
during the competition report comment period, we are highly skeptical
that the distinctions drawn from these highly specific examples can be
used to justify a recommendation to eschew protective price caps.  There
is a lack of published data at this time regarding competition between
the .com domain and other gTLDs, but experience of brand holders is that
they are not able to leave their .com brand and move into another gTLD.
In the absence of price caps, entities that wish to migrate to a more
specific domain, such as .mfr or .auto, would be subject to
opportunistic pricing.  The increases in Internet usage cited by the
report are not dispositive of protections against opportunistic pricing,
justifying the recommendation against price caps.  If anything, it
highlights the increased number of potential victims of predatory
pricing, and thus brings to our attention the greater need for
restrictions.   Moreover, the absence of price caps may trigger the
large existing TLD operators to invoke the "equal treatment" clause in
their registry agreements with ICANN.   Operators of existing large
TLDs, including must-have addresses ending in .com and .net, should not
be able to take advantage of a flaw in new TLD policy to increase costs
for renewing important domain names owned by trademark owners in
existing spaces.


Assessing the success of the new gTLD Program

Given the scope and size of the current undertaking, there should be
significant delays in between application rounds to understand a number
of issues critical to the health of the DNS, such as:

*       Whether trademark owners will be able to vindicate their
intellectual property rights given the introduction of any new gTLDs;
*       Whether the costs associated    with preventing customer fraud
and protecting brands are justified by the benefits realized by
registrants and users of the new gTLDs; and 
*       Whether the new gTLDs, in fact, do yield any tangible benefits
to the broader Internet community. 

The impact of new gTLD new revenue streams on ICANN's non-profit
corporation status

The proposed new gTLD Program stands to increase ICANN's coffers
significantly.  Prior to issuing its 2007 annual report, ICANN
maintained an $18 million balance.  As a result of its revenue streams
in 2007, ICANN now maintains a $35 million balance.  There are serious
concerns that ICANN is not fulfilling its charitable purposes under U.S.
law by building up large reserves, far beyond the "Basic Cost Recovery
Principle" set forth by ICANN ten years ago.

In effect, ICANN has transformed itself from a cost-based revenue model
to one where its revenue will grow with every domain registration and
renewal.  In this new model, ICANN has an inherent financial incentive
to encourage new registrations.  Moreover, ICANN continues to grow its
revenue by generating demand for registrations whose only real purpose
is to prevent cybersquatting and consumer fraud.

Moreover, non-profits have recently been subject to increased scrutiny
by the IRS and Congress for effectively hoarding their endowments at the
expense of achieving the underlying missions that give rise to their
tax-exempt status.  To avoid any unwanted scrutiny, ICANN should not use
the additional revenues it will gain as a result of this new gTLD system
for any purpose other than the stated purposes in its Charter and
Bylaws.  

Industry strongly believes that with the new revenue streams created by
new gTLDs, ICANN should commit to expending additional resources to
ensure the security, stability and integrity of Internet commerce. Such
measures should include establishing mechanisms to ensure that trademark
holders have adequate and effective tools to protect their intellectual
property rights.

Summary

In viewing the new gTLD Program in light of the existing system,
observers have noted that ICANN may not have the ability to manage the
possible flood of new gTLD application process.  In fact, adding
numerous TLDs that may result in large numbers of failing registries to
the Internet may actually produce the unwanted and unintended
consequence of creating instability and insecurity in the Internet
infrastructure.  Our comments above highlight the areas of greatest
concern.  We look forward to working with you, the ICANN Board of
Directors and the ICANN staff in strengthening the DNS, and if found to
be necessary, helping to explore ways to increase competition without
creating the above noted negative externalities.  

Given the above issues, we suggest that before ICANN proceeds with the
new gTLD Program and Process, it should follow these recommendations:

*       Set aside the flawed economic study submitted to ICANN in March
2009 and undertake a new, comprehensive empirical economic study of the
domain name marketplace as mandated by the ICANN Board in 2007, as well
as an extensive evaluation of whether new gTLDs are needed in the first
place given the record of existing new gTLDs;
*       Establish criteria for success of ICANN's new gTLD program in
the proposed first round - including Internationalized Domain Name TLDs
- before moving forward;
*       Modify the roll-out of the new gTLD program to the limited
number of cc IDN TLDs (once the study has been completed and criteria
established), treating these cc IDNs as a form of pilot; and
*       Limit further roll-out of new gTLDs until sufficient safeguards
are in place to protect Internet users, businesses, and brand-owners
alike from any existing and expected acts of cyber-fraud. 

We respectfully request that the launch of the new gTLD program be
delayed until these issues and recommendations can be adequately
addressed.


Sincerely, 

Marc-Anthony Signorino
Director, Technology Policy
National Association of Manufacturers

For The Coalition for Online Trademark Protection


The Coalition for Online Trademark Protection is an ad hoc coalition
comprised of corporations, trade associations and business groups that
represent thousands of multinational companies and millions of employees
and Internet users, both in the U.S. and abroad.  The Coalition includes
the Aerospace Industries Association, The American Advertising
Federation, the Consumer Electronics Association, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.



_____________________________________

Marc-Anthony Signorino
Director, Technology Policy
Direct:  (202) 637-3072
Cell:     (202) 494-1290
Email:  msignorino@xxxxxxx <mailto:mdavenport@xxxxxxx> 

National Association of Manufacturers
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004-1790

Check out our blog at www.shopfloor.org <http://www.shopfloor.org/> 


Attachment: COTP DAG2 ICANN gTLD Coalition Letter v.3.doc
Description: COTP DAG2 ICANN gTLD Coalition Letter v.3.doc



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy