RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Issues list item

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is a critical issue raised by Avri, but is relevant to all
new TLDs and not just IDNs.  I would not focus on geographic or
linguistic differences, but instead on the fact that a small group of
registrar conglomerates have consistently abused the rules for new TLD
launches by garnering as many registrar accreditations as they can,
despite the clear intent of ICANN (and the registry launch rules) to
distribute the domain pool fairly amongst all interested applicants. 

This issue should be addressed in the context of the "new gTLD" PDP, and
also in the "existing gTLD" PDP since IDN launches in existing TLDs have
and will provide further opportunity for this sort of abuse.  It is also
an issue relevant to the Working Group addressing potential release of
Reserved Names, and to the current debate about the .xxx registry.  

Seems to me that ICANN rules need to clearly prohibit this sort of
thing, and violators should forfeit their domains.  The problem is that
a rule like this is hard to gain consensus about and clearly draft, much
less enforce, and the registrar conglomerates will change to work around
any rules or enforcement efforts.  Indeed EUrid has tried to enforce its
rules to some extent, ultimately via litigation, and is in a fierce
battle with the squatter conglomerate that registered tens of thousands
of names.

It seems to make sense to have a rule that registrar applicants must
disclose all affiliated companies and individuals, and collectively all
of those "affiliates" could only have one registrar accreditation in the
new launch.  Then, in addition to a substantial privacy issue, there
would be a huge definitional issue about "affiliate".  If that is the
standard commercial definition of "controlling or controlled by", then
we will just see a lot of 49% interests and the registrar conglomerates
will continue to create new "unaffiliated" companies.  

I do not see an easy drafting solution for this, or strong will or
ability to enforce by ICANN, even assuming that most of the ICANN
community would want such a rule.  Surely this should not stop
interested Constituencies from pushing for this abuse to be identified
as a problem, needing a consensus solution in the context of existing
PDPs.  Otherwise the problem will continue to grow as the 'rich get
richer' with their vast domain portfolios fueling expansion into new
TLDs.  (One small example, we recently found that Demand Media (eNom)
appears to own nearly every single-letter domain in the .im TLD, of
course with nothing but pay-per-click ad pages at those domains.)

The Business Constituency, interested in ensuring competition in domain
markets, should be concerned with stopping this anti-competitive abuse.
It clearly has resulted in a small group of conglomerates owning a
disproportionate percentage of valuable TLD real estate, and obtaining a
huge market advantage in new TLDs.  Businesses are affected by this when
we or our customers go to find new domain names for new products or
campaigns.  Consistently we find many of the most desirable ones are
taken by domain squatters holding the registrations purely for
speculative price appreciation and pay-per-click revenue.    

I copy this to the BC List and ask for interested members to please
reply or call with comments.  Perhaps Philip, Alistair or Marilyn could
address whether and to what extent this issue is already being addressed
by the current PDPs, or the chances of having it addressed in those
PDPs?

Kind regards,

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Dan Dougherty
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:00 PM
To: wrodger@xxxxxxxxx; Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Issues list item

I would likewise be interested in any data, but the absence of any such
hard data does not diminish the concerns raised by Avri.  It is
important and needs to be considered.

Thanks,

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Will Rodger
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Issues list item

Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is one issue related to IDNs that has been tickling at me and I 
> am not sure where it fits.  I am even not sure to what extent the 
> issue is different in IDNs then in non-IDNs
>
> I am concerned about the possible name-grab by Northern speculators of

> all the best IDN TLDs and SLDs in scripts/alphabets used mostly in 
> Southern areas.
>
> I understand that from some aspects this may be no different then 
> investments done in current non-IDN domain names.  However, given the 
> economic predominance and experience of Northern investors, I am 
> concerned that the initial  name-grab  could push many language 
> communities into a new form of 'name imperialism', where the 
> linguistic resources that should be available to all members of a 
> language community would be dominated by a small set of business 
> interests.


Do we have hard data on this from the past? I fear ICANN is already
struggling under the weight of the rules it has.

Will