ICANN Retreats on Opposition to Standard Contracts with UDRP Providers by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association
While it took three months, ICANN recently responded to the Business Constituency’s fall 2013 letter raising questions about the UDRP Status Report issued the day after the conclusion of the July 2013 Durban ICANN meeting. In a key clarification, ICANN’s response concedes that the Report does not predetermine the outcome of UDRP reform efforts slated to begin in spring 2015 — stating, “As with all PDP recommendations, ICANN would follow the Bylaws in how those recommendations are considered and implemented…the Status Report was not intended to cause any confusion or supplant any future community discussion on the issue of ICANN’s relationships with UDRP providers.”
Domain registrants have longed voiced concerns about the lack of adequate uniformity and predictability in UDRP decisions, as well as significant qualitative differences between the many accredited arbitration bodies. ICA has therefore long advocated that ICANN establish standard and enforceable contracts with all UDRP providers to ameliorate these concerns. ICANN’s Business Constituency, of which ICA is an active member, has reached a similar conclusion that standard agreements would be desirable for both trademark owners and registrants — especially as ICANN accredits new and untested regionally based arbitration organizations. The BC therefore posed a series of questions to ICANN about the Status Report in a letter sent on September 18, 2013, with a particular focus on the timing of the Report’s release, the lack of solicitation of public comment prior to its finalization, and its potential impact on future UDRP reform efforts (see internetcommerce.org/BC_Questions_UDRP_Report for background on and text of the BC letter).
ICANN’s full response is provided below; we are not fully convinced by ICANN’s explanation of the timing of the Report’s release, why the Report claimed that the URS was not based on a policy, and why a preliminary version of the Report was not put out for public comment. However, all that is water under the bridge at this point.
What we do find interesting and somewhat encouraging is that, while maintaining its curious position that establishing contracts with UDRP providers would impede ICANN’s ability to take swift corrective action against UDRP providers – something that ICANN has never done in more than a decade of UDRP practice – the response does back away a bit from staunch opposition to creating a standard contract. ICANN concedes that “a contract could be developed that would allow for flexibility in corrective action or graduated penalties” and adds “If ICANN were to see a great expansion of UDRP providers in the future, or if there were increasing need to take corrective action against UDRP providers, the development of a formal contractual regime may indeed become more advantageous than the system that exists today.”
Given its May 2013 accreditation of the Arab Center for Dispute resolution (ACDR) as a UDRP provider, the strong likelihood that additional regional providers will apply for similar approval, and the clear need for an enforceable framework to prevent a race to the bottom in UDRP practice, we believe those conditions will clearly exist when the GNSO takes up UDRP reform next year. ICA will continue to voice registrant’s concerns about the flaws in the existing system and keep on pushing for development of a standard contract.
Here’s the full ICANN letter—
December 19, 2013
Ms. Elisa Cooper
Chair, ICANN Business Constituency
Dear Elisa,
I write in response to the Business Constituency’s 18 September 2013 note regarding the “UDRP Providers and Uniformity of Process – Status Report” (Status Report) document.
The Status Report was produced as part of the Board’s consideration of the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution’s application to serve as an approved dispute resolution provider under the UDRP, which was approved on 18 May 2013. See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-
18may13-en.htm#1.d. The decision on the ACDR’s application was taken only after further public comment was received and analyzed, including the inputs from the BC. In its rationale for the resolution, the Board noted “the Board also requested that staff report to the community on how ICANN’s earlier consideration of UDRP provider uniformity issues was concluded. As a result, a briefing paper has been prepared and will be publicly posted.” The Status Report is that briefing paper. In fact, a draft of the Status Report was presented to the Board in advance of its decision on the
ACDR application and included in the Board Briefing Materials posted with the minutes of 18 May 2013. See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-3-2-18may13-en.pdf, at page 65-68. The Status Report was never intended to be a document similar to a GNSO Issue Report, for which public comment is necessary, as was suggested in your letter.
In response to the questions raised in your letter:
Question 1 – Contracting with UDRP Providers: Entering into formal contracts with the UDRP providers carries with it the formality of following all contractual obligations, including potential notice and cure requirements, as opposed to ICANN’s ability today to take swifter corrective action. The UDRP system to date has operated quite well without having formal contractual tools, and with very few (if any) substantiated reports of provider misconduct that require corrective action. While a contract could be developed that would allow for flexibility in corrective action or graduated penalties, the actual experience with UDRP providers to date does not necessitate the formal contractual development for which the BC seems to be calling. If ICANN were to see a great expansion of UDRP providers in the future, or if there were increasing need to take corrective action against UDRP providers, the development of a formal contractual regime may indeed become more advantageous than the system that exists today.
Question 2 – URS as Implementation of Policy Recommendations: The UDRP was developed through a formal policy development process. The Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) was developed as part of the implementation of the GNSO’s 2007 Policy Recommendations regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. ICANN agrees with the BC on this point. However – unlike the UDRP – the rules and procedures of the URS were not developed through a PDP. The Status Report was referencing the status of the URS itself – and not the policy recommendations underpinning the development of the URS – when indicating that the URS is not policy based.
Questions 3 and 4 – Timing of Publication/Availability of Public Comment: Because of the stated purpose of the Status Report, which was to provide an update on ICANN’s review of its relationships with UDRP providers, the document was never contemplated for public comment. Further, because of the informational status of the Status Report, and the fact that no discussion of the Status Report was anticipated at the Durban meeting, the timing of the posting of the Status Report was not considered to be linked to the Durban meeting. As seen through efforts such as the BC’s letter, the ICANN community always has the ability to raise concerns on this issue.
Question 5 – Impact on Future Policy Development Work: As the BC points out in its letter, the GNSO’s future work is expected to include an issue report on the UDRP 18 months after the delegation of new gTLDs. Issues relating to the UDRP provider approval process have long been contemplated as a topic for the policy development process, and were in fact included in the 2011 Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. See gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issuereport-03oct11-en.pdf. Policy recommendations regarding ICANN’s relationship with UDRP
Providers could be an outcome of that PDP (or one in the future). As with all PDP recommendations, ICANN would follow the Bylaws in how those recommendations are considered and implemented.
The Status Report could be considered as an input into the future PDP Working Group discussions if the Working Group wished to do so.
As discussed above, the timing of the publication of the Status Report was not intended to cause any confusion or supplant any future community discussion on the issue of ICANN’s relationships with UDRP providers. Instead, the Status Report represented the completion of ongoing work within ICANN. Thank you for reaching out for clarification on this document.
Best Regards,
Akram Atallah
President, Global Domains Division
This article by Philip Corwin of the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Response2BC_UDRP_Status_Report
.AU Ranks High In World’s Top Domain Sales In 2013 by George Pongas, AusRegistry
Last year was a memorable one for .au domain name sales with a number of significant auctions and aftermarket deals making headlines.
For the second time in three years, a .au domain name was included in the top four sales for the world’s highest reported domain name sales for country code Top-Level Domains.
Coming in at fourth place in 2013 was cruises.com.au which was sold for $103,400. It was only edged out of third place by pizza.nl (Netherlands) by $100, followed by fotograf.de (Germany) at $117,810 in second place and jobs.ca (Canada) at $450,000 in first place.
This year’s fourth place follows last year’s highest recorded .au sale – hobart.com.au, which sold for $67,600 and ranked 15th in 2012’s sales chart.
The other .au domain name in this year’s top 30 was mysuper.com.au which came in at 29th spot with a sale value of $28,691.
This is a terrific result for .au and demonstrates the strong position it has attained on the global stage.
It’s especially significant considering the larger namespaces it’s competing with and the countries with bigger economies. Despite Australia’s relatively small population, the .au namespace is recognised as one of the world’s leading country codes and ranks in the top 10 country code Top-Level Domains globally.
Only recently we reported on the many benefits business owners can attain by registering a premium generic .com.au or .net.au domain names. Our carloans.com.au case study showed how a premium generic domain name helped their business decrease marketing and AdWord spend while increasing revenue and brand awareness.
Clearly, savvy business owners are aware of the .au aftermarket value and are using it to their advantage.
In September 2011, investmentproperty.com.au became the highest recorded domain name at auction when it was snapped up for $125,000 by New South Wales property developer Vision Homes. Only last year, the domain names – sydney.com.au, melbourne.com.au, brisbane.com.au, adelaide.com.au and auction.com.au – were touted for sale with a projected retail price somewhere in the order of $1 million as a total package.
I encourage business owners to contact their Registrar and consider a premium generic .au domain name for their business.
No doubt we’ll see even higher domain name sales in 2014 as the intrinsic value of .au domain names increases.
Although 2014 will see many new options become available in the market, my expectation is that the possible confusion will make premium generic domain names in established namespaces even more valuable.
In the face of confusion, people will default to something they trust and understand.
This article by George Pongas, General Manager, AusRegistry, was sourced with permission from www.ausregistry.com.au/news/au-ranks-high-in-world-s-top-domain-name-sales-in-2013
ICANN : The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, São Paulo – Conference Update
The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance will take place in São Paulo, Brazil on April 23rd and 24th 2014.
This meeting will focus on crafting Internet governance principles and proposing a roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.
Prof. Virgílio Fernandes Almeida, Coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and Secretary for Information Technology Policy of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, will be the Chair of the meeting. The Chair will shortly appoint co-chairs from other sectors of the global community to ensure multistakeholder balance.
Four committees will be created to ensure a successful event.
The High-Level Multistakeholder Committee, chaired by the Brazilian Minister of Communications Mr. Paulo Bernardo Silva, will be responsible for overseeing the overall strategy of the meeting and fostering the involvement of the international community. It will be composed of: Ministerial-level representation from twelve governments; twelve members of the multistakeholder community (3 from civil society, 3 from the private sector, 3 from academia and 3 from the technical community) to be proposed through /1net; and two representatives from International Organizations to be appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations. The names of the members of this committee will be announced on Monday, January 27th 2014.
The Executive Multistakeholder Committee, co-chaired by Demi Getschko and one more person to be proposed through /1net, will be responsible for the meeting agenda, the design of the meeting format and invitation of attendees, all equally balanced across the global multistakeholder community. It will be composed of the following eight Brazilian members through CGI: Maximiliano Martinhão and Benedicto Fonseca from government, Carlos Afonso and Percival Henriques from civil society, Cassio Vecchiatti and Henrique Faulhaber from the private sector, Flávio Wagner and Demi Getschko from academia and the technical community. Eight additional members from the global multistakeholder community will be proposed through /1net by Friday, January 17th 2014. The United Nations was invited to appoint one member from an International organization.
The date of the first meeting of the Executive Multistakeholder Committee will be Monday, January 27th 2014 in Sao Paulo, Brazil at the CGI office and remote participation will be facilitated.
The Logistics and Organizational Committee will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser (CGI) and Nick Tomasso (ICANN). Initially this committee will include three additional members one each from the Ministry of Justice of Brazil, the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil and one liaison proposed by the Steering Committee of /1net. This committee will be responsible for guiding all logistical aspects of the meeting including: media outreach, international communications, website design and management, awareness raising, meeting venue, traveler funding strategy, security, and remote participation.
The first meeting of the Logistics and Organizational Committee will be held on Monday, January 27th, 2014. In the meantime the two co-chairs are already engaged in laying the groundwork for the logistics of the meeting to ensure timely execution.
The last committee, the Council of Governmental Advisors, will welcome all government representatives interested to participate and contribute to the meeting. The High Level Multistakeholder Committee will soon establish a process for the creation and operation of this Council.
To support the committees and operationalize their decisions, a Secretariat will be formed and headed by Daniel Fink who will be empowered as the Secretariat full-time Executive Director. The Secretariat, to be located in Sao Paulo, will be responsible for all aspects of management and operations to ensure the success of the meeting including: logistics, finance, risk, content contributions, and communications. The start date of the Secretariat operations will be Monday, January 27th 2014.
The official website for the meeting will be launched on January 27th 2014. The website will enable the global community to provide contributions for the substantive agenda of the meeting, which consists of the following two specific topics:
Internet governance principles;
Roadmap for the further evolution of the Internet governance ecosystem.
The roadmap should address the desirable properties for globally effective, legitimate and evolving governance frameworks. The roadmap should also encompass a path to evolve and globalize the current institutions and mechanisms, as well as address emerging needs.
This announcement was sourced from :
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11jan14-en.htm
Yahoo Wins YahooTechnicalHelp.com Domain in Arbitration
An arbitrator with the National Arbitration Forum has recently awarded the domain name YahooTechnicalHelp.com to Yahoo.The company submitted the complaint on November 27, 2013.
Yahoo owns many trademark registrations for the “Yahoo” mark all over the world.Therefore,it is more than obvious that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with its trademark .Moreover,the company contended in the complaint that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith .
One of the key points of this complaint was when Yahoo managed to demonstrate that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name bad faith,by trying to direct Internet users to a webpage offering for sale counterfeit products .
Yahoo managed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy and the Panel ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
You can read the decision here .
December 2013 Highest Reported Non .COM gTLD Sales
3.biz was the highest selling non .COM gTLD in December, 2013. The domain name changed hands for $17,000 through Sedo.
Here are the 20 highest reported non .COM gTLD sales for December 2013:
1. 3.biz $17,000 Sedo
2. CarGames.net $13,901
3. CTDO.org $9,977
4. Slot.org $7,000
5. EGI.net $6,400
6. Express.net $6,300
7 Pizza.info $6,180
8. Entsorgung.org $5,988
9. Tess.net $5,500
10. Licence.org $5,000
11. TMNet.net $5,382
12. Anwalt.pro $4,830
13. MyPeople.net $4,500
14. MobilePro.net $4,047
15. IPDB.net $3,788
16. XVideos.mobi $3,450
17.Brautschuhe.org $3,400
17.Gokken.info $3,400
19. VirtualMuseum.org $3,200
20. Thread.org $3,000
20. Mert.net $3,000
