Opponents and Proponents of the IRT Agree: They Don't Want New gTLDs!
- To: irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Opponents and Proponents of the IRT Agree: They Don't Want New gTLDs!
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
After reading all of the comments submitted on the IRT, one thing should be
obvious: most opponents *AND* proponents of the IRT do not support new gTLDs!
If ICANN is responsive to community feedback, the only logical course is for
ICANN to drop the new gTLD plan. This would demonstrate that it is capable of
listening to the bottom-up consensus that has been established against new
gTLDs. It is a waste of ICANN's resources, which are supposed to serve the
public, to attempt to jam through a proposal over the serious and persuasive
objections of the community. The DOC/NTIA need to give ICANN clear direction in
this regard, to further narrow ICANN's mission if ICANN's unaccountable staff
and board continue to ignore the wishes of the public which have been so fully
documented. Comment period after comment period demonstrates this reality.
We would like to take this opportunity to endorse the thoughtful comments of
Avri Doria and Paul Keating:
which are aligned with our previously submitted comments at:
(and the other links embedded in that comment). The IRT cannot simply be
"fixed" by ICANN staff tweaking it for another guidebook. There should not be
any future guidebooks.
If UDRP reform is what folks truly desire, this can only be accomplished within
the GNSO. Responsible domain name registrants like ourselves would be happy to
participate in creating balanced solutions that would have consensus support of
the community. Responsible domain name registrants hate cybersquatting just as
much as TM holders do (indeed, cybersquatting and other criminal activity on
the internet reduces overall internet commerce; by eliminating these abuses,
legitimate domain registrants directly benefit).
However, many are also all too familiar with abusive UDRP filings and
complaints from overly aggressive markholders, and would be able to ensure that
a balanced solution eliminates those abuses by requiring proper due process as
well as limiting complaints to "clear cut" cybersquatting. The IRT failed the
public in this regard. The UDRP (or URS) should not simply be a cheap lottery
ticket used by complainants to reverse hijack elite generic domain names. These
voices were not represented in the IRT, because the IP Constituency
intentionally self-selected the IRT members to exclude those who would
counterbalance the obvious pro-complainant domination of their team.
In conclusion, ICANN needs to drop the new gTLD plan, recognizing that at this
time there is no consensus to move forward. Any work on future RPMs, or
modifications of of existing ones, should be done in the GNSO via a bottom-up
consensus process, as required by ICANN's own bylaws.
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.