[bc-gnso] RE: [bc-gnso] FW: Politico: ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name

[Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Most welcome, John.

I take your media counsel very seriously.

And I think you are right – there have already been protests from GAC members, 
Canadian retailers, US Telecom, Microsoft, registrars, and others, and I 
suspect the list will get quite a bit longer between now and Beijing.



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] FW: Politico: ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name

Phil,

Thanks for this.  PoliticoPro is not a subscription I keep current!

From a communications point-of-view, ICANN has a real problem.  There are too 
many people/organizations/institutions that can claim a legitimate voice on 
this matter but are without complicity in the history of the subject.  There 
has been a discussion on the NTAG list about noise in DC (I have to figure it 
is WAY down the list of things to-do), but media attention is another matter.

Recall the media session in Toronto.  Based on the discussion, the Politico 
story is exactly the kind of she-said, he-said back-and-forth that even the 
mainstream media can get their arms around.

I thought the news of China's hacking activities on the eve of the meeting in 
Beijing was going to be the story, but, if enough brand-name companies can be 
drawn into this one, it will take off.

Watch that space.

Berard

--------- Original Message ---------
Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: Politico: ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name
From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: 2/20/13 7:54 am
To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>

FYI---

This Politico story on “closed generics”, which was behind a paywall at 
Politico Pro yesterday, is the lead story in Politico’s Technology section 
today…

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/icanns-debating-whats-in-a-domain-name-87816.html

[http://images.politico.com/global/v3/homelogo.gif]<http://www.politico.com/>

ICANN’s debating what’s in a domain name
By: Michelle Quinn
February 20, 2013 04:41 AM EST

Should a company be allowed to run a generic term such as tire, insurance or 
book as a domain and wall off its use from competitors?
That’s the question the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is 
wrestling with as it prepares to begin awarding firms new top-level domains — 
the words to the right of the dot. The nonprofit firm has been evaluating about 
1,900 applications for new domains, many of them common dictionary terms.
There had been agreement that companies like Apple could win generic words such 
as apple because of its brand.
But companies such as Amazon, Google, Goodyear, L’Oreal and others also applied 
for a wide array of words and indicated that they would like to operate the 
registry as “closed” — meaning they may not allow other firms to buy what are 
known as second-level domains.
Clearly, companies want to own and control generic words as domains so that 
they can offer their services. But with that comes the possibility of blocking 
competitors who want to attach their brand to a term. For example, Ford might 
want to buy ford.truck but be blocked from doing so by the owner of .truck.
Now ICANN, which has been largely silent on the issue, is soliciting public 
comment.
“The train is leaving the station,” Akram Atallah, ICANN’s chief operating 
officer, said to POLITICO in an interview. “There are a few instances where 
stakeholders are feeling this is an issue that could limit competition, and 
therefore, we should bring it to the forefront.”
When it voted to expand the Internet names in 2010, ICANN leaders said they 
were doing so to encourage innovation. The firm did not specify in its domain 
name guidebook what terms like generic or closed might mean.
In a letter to ICANN’s leaders, Russell Pangborn, assistant general counsel of 
trademarks at Microsoft, wrote that the “situation threatens the openness and 
freedom of the Internet and could have harmful consequences for Internet users 
worldwide. These applications also present a competitive threat to other 
companies.”
“Generic words used in a generic way belong to all people,” Michele Neylon of 
Blacknight, a European Web-hosting firm, wrote in another letter signed by 
others. “It is inherently in the public interest to allow access to … new 
[generic top-level domains] to the whole of the Internet Community, e.g., 
.BLOG, .MUSIC, .CLOUD.”
Philip Corwin, founding principal of Virtualaw, who has one client competing 
with Google for some of the terms, said he will begin to lobby officials in 
Washington and Europe. “It is emerging as a big issue and one that is beyond 
ICANN but the future of e-commerce,” he said.
Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice and policy vice chairman for 
the ICANN business constituency, said there are “legitimate concerns about 
competition and potential confusion for consumers if a single competitor has 
perpetual control of a generic keyword as a top-level domain.”
Atallah said that having a generic term is not a guaranteed ticket to success.
The owner has to “do a lot of marketing and business development to be relevant 
in the marketplace,” he said. “It is not a given just by having the name, you 
have market share. It is not just the name that makes the name.”

© 2013 POLITICO LLC



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6113 - Release Date: 02/18/13
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6113 - Release Date: 02/18/13