The White House has just released the “2013 JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT” issued by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), and ICANN efforts are discussed at some length. The Report makes clear that U.S. activities within ICANN are regarded as an integral part of the government’s overall strategic efforts against IP infringement.

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2013-us-ipec-joint-strategic-plan.pdf).

The Introduction to the report states that the U.S. plans to expand on multiple action items, including:

• Protect intellectual property at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FBI will work with ICANN, in collaboration with stakeholders, so that new top-level domains do not become new venues for infringement.

The full section discussing ICANN states that the National Telecommunications and Information Agency  (NTIA) will continue to lead and coordinate the government’s engagement with ICANN to:

• further improve the new gTLD program, including through mechanisms for intellectual property protection
• develop positions within ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to advance access to accurate, complete, and publicly available WHOIS data
• improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) between Registrars and ICANN
• effective contract compliance by ICANN
• appropriate consideration of intellectual property issues in the context of gTLDs
• closely monitor adoption and implementation by Registrars of the revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)…to ensure that ICANN holds its accredited Registrars to all of the new commitments included in the RAA

The Report also states that the U.S will closely monitor the implementation of new Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), including Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) for effectiveness – and that it reserves the right “to seek necessary course corrections as affected U.S. stakeholders gain experience with the new DNS environment”.

We would certainly hope that any such review is preceded by a decent interval of time and associated experience before contemplating any tweaks to URS — and that the affected stakeholders to be considered include new gTLD domain registrants, as it remains to be seen whether implementation of the URS will adequately protect their procedural and substantive due process rights. For its part, ICA also intends to monitor and review URS implementation – and to advocate changes if its narrow purpose as a UDRP supplement is not respected by rights holders or arbitration providers.

The Report also alludes to the government’s widespread domain seizure activities, both domestically and abroad. The section titled “Improve National Law Enforcement Efforts to Protect Intellectual Property Rights”, includes this information:

–In June 2010, the IPR Center initiated Operation In Our Sites, the first coordinated and sus­tained law enforcement effort to target websites that distribute counterfeit merchandise and pirated works. Since the operation’s inception, Federal law enforcement agencies, in conjunction with DOJ, have conducted 13 operations targeting sites focused on particular subject matter such as sports apparel or luxury goods and resulting in the seizure of more than 1,700 domain names of infringing websites and monetary seizures of over $3 million.

−−In April and May 2012, as a result of investigations generated by the IPR Center led Operation In Our Sites, in two separate cases ICE-HSI, working with DOJ, seized over $2 million in proceeds from online sales of counterfeit goods by Chinese perpetrators. The funds were seized from correspondent bank accounts located at the Bank of China in New York under 18 U.S.C. § 981(k), which permits the U.S. Government to seize funds from a foreign institution’s interbank accounts in the United States for forfeiture to the Treasury. This was ICE-HSI’s first use of section 981(k) to seize illicitly-derived proceeds identified as part of an intellectual property rights criminal investigation deposited in a Chinese bank.

And the section titled “Combat Foreign-Based and Foreign-Controlled Websites that Infringe American Intellectual Property Rights” includes this information:

•Operation Pangea is a joint global operation focused on targeting websites offering illicit and potentially dangerous substances to consumers in the United States and abroad. In 2012, Operation Pangea V resulted in the shutdown of more than 18,000 illegal pharmacy websites and the seizure of about $10.5 million worth of pharmaceuticals worldwide.

•In the fall of 2011, the co-founders and other top administrators of NinjaVideo.net, a website offering pirated movies and television programs to millions of users, which is hosted on servers located in the Netherlands and France, pleaded guilty to criminal copyright infringement and were later sentenced to Federal prison. In April and May 2012, in two separate cases generated from Operation In Our Sites investigations, ICE-HSI seized over $2 million in proceeds from online sales of counterfeit goods from the Bank of China in New York.

•Voluntary initiatives by the private sector are intended to help reduce the ability of foreign and domestic websites to target U.S. consumers. IPEC has worked closely with Internet service providers (ISPs), advertisers, credit card companies, payment processors, search engines, domain name registrars, and registries to encourage voluntary steps to reduce infringement.

•USTR has issued three Notorious Markets Lists, which identify foreign websites offering pirated and counterfeit products as part of its annual review of physical and online markets that deal in copyright and trademark infringing goods. As noted, several markets included on those lists have taken action to address concerns.

While typically bureaucratic in its comingling of the important and the mundane — and giving equal billing to such disparate infringements as life-threatening counterfeit  pharmaceuticals and mechanical equipment alongside unauthorized MP3s — the Report nonetheless offers in its entirety a sweeping portrait of the extremely broad scope of the resources and activities dedicated by the U.S. to this war on IP infringement — a war in which ICANN has been assigned a leading role.

The complete report section discussing ICANN follows:

Protect Intellectual Property at ICANN

The expansion of the domain name system (DNS) through the implementation of ICANN’s new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is an important evolution in the administration of the DNS, which brings with it the need to ensure the new gTLDs take into account and provide for meaningful intellectual property and other safeguards and support the type of innovation and competition that has led to the success of the modern Internet.

Going forward:

Coordinated via the NTIA-administered DNS Interagency Working Group, NTIA will continue to lead the U.S. Government’s engagement with ICANN’s multi-stakeholder processes to further improve the new gTLD program, including through mechanisms for intellectual property protection, and to mitigate abuses of the domain name registration system. Specifically, NTIA will collaborate with all U.S. stakeholders, including intellectual property stakeholders, as well as other Federal agencies, such as USPTO, and FBI and other law enforcement agencies, to develop positions within ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to advance access to accurate, complete, and publicly available WHOIS data, improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) between Registrars and ICANN, effective contract compliance by ICANN, and appropriate consideration of intellectual property issues in the context of gTLDs.

In this regard, NTIA will closely monitor the effectiveness of the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs), such as the Trademark Clearinghouse and Trademark Claims Service, and the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS), that have been developed in conjunction with the new gTLD program to ensure they provide meaningful and effective remedies so that new gTLDs do not become avenues for cybersquat­ting and infringing activities. NTIA will work through all appropriate mechanisms within the ICANN multi-stakeholder process, and particularly the GAC, to review the effectiveness of the new RPMs, and to seek necessary course corrections as affected U.S. stakeholders gain experience with the new DNS environment. In addition, NTIA will closely monitor adoption and implementation by Registrars of the revised Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), which will include a specific focus on ICANN’s contract compliance capabilities and results to ensure that ICANN holds its accredited Registrars to all of the new commitments included in the RAA.

This article by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association, was sourced with permission from:
internetcommerce.org/IPECandICANN

The Geographic Regions Review Working Group,has nearly completed its work developing recommendations to the ICANN Board for the continued use of the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework. 

The Working Group has produced those recommendations in a Final Report document that is being shared today with the community.

According to the Working Group Charter, each community Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee that contributed members to the Working Group will now have the opportunity to formally review and comment on this document before it is submitted to the ICANN Board. The Working Group will host a workshop during the upcoming ICANN Public Meeting in Durban, South Africa and briefings will be made available to the leadership of all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SOs and ACs) as needed.

The Working Group was formed by the Board to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN’s Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN’s Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. A full record of the Working Group’s past reports and public workshops and presentations can be found at the Working Group’s Confluence Wiki space.

The Final Report will soon be formally shared directly with the leadership of the SOs and ACs participating in the Working Group. They will have a full 90 days after the conclusion of the Durban meeting to discuss the Working Group’s recommendations with their communities and, if they choose, to submit written statements back to the Working Group. Later this year, after that exchange has taken place, the Working Group will formally submit its Final Report recommendations to the ICANN Board for consideration.

This announcement was sourced from :

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-22jun13-en.htm

According to a press release,the Trading Point of Financial Instruments Ltd of London,has acquired the two-letter domain name XM.com for an undisclosed amount.

Trading Point of Financial Instruments Ltd acquired the domain name to use it as the short name for XEMarkets.Although the purchase price wasn’t announced,in March and April,Frank Aiello announced that the two-letter domain name XM.com was for sale for $220,00.The domain name appears to have changed hands at the end of April .

You can read the press release after the jump :

” Internationally acknowledged financial Institution Trading Point of Financial Instruments Ltd has recently announced the successful acquisition of the prestigious two-letter domain name XM.COM as the short name for XEMarkets for an undisclosed amount.

“The foreign exchange market, to which we provide direct access to our clients has practically no boundaries – nor does XM.COM”, said Constantinos Cleanthous, Founder and CEO, at the press conference held on 21 June 2013. “Currently, we serve clients from over 170 countries worldwide, and we envisage that XM.COM is a brand name that will as easily become a household name as the online trading products that it features. With the acquisition of the XM.COM domain, Trading Point will definitely reinforce its brand value on a global scale”.

XM.COM is the short name of XEMarkets, the leading brand of Trading Point that reflects one of the company’s core values: global thinking without boundaries across a wide spectrum of cultures, driven by a unified set of business standards.

The acquisition of the rare and memorable domain name XM.COM, is a remarkable example of the company’s Top Management forward thinking mindset which goes hand in hand with the modern internet era. The unique two-letter domain is a significant step forward in the corporate history of Trading Point, giving the company a definite edge over its business competitors.

The first company ever to purchase a two-letter .com domain was American Airlines in 1997, followed by Hennes & Mauritz HM.com and Deutsche Bank DB.com one year later. By 1998 all two-letter domains were registered, therefore it was only possible to purchase them from their previous owners. This in itself makes XM.COM one of the world’s most valuable 676 two-letter domain names, along with those acquired by Facebook, Financial Times, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and General Electrics, to only name a few.

As a European financial institution, Trading Point has long established a solid local presence with all the attributes of a highly competitive global player, ready to adapt and innovate with unfailing commitment. With the acquisition of XM.COM, the company undoubtedly demonstrates their firmness to strengthen long-term customer engagement by stepping beyond geographical borders in the truest sense of the word.”

Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization (” GNSO “) Thick Whois Policy Development Process Working Group tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a policy recommendation regarding the use of ‘thick’ Whois by all gTLD Registries has published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.21 MB] for public comment.

Current Status: The Policy Development Process ( PDP ) Working Group has published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.21 MB] and is soliciting community input on the preliminary recommendations contained in the report.

Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The Thick Whois PDP WG was tasked to provide the GNSO Council with ‘a policy recommendation regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries, both existing and future’. Following its analysis of the different issues outlined in its Charter, including: response consistency; stability; access to Whois data; impact on privacy and data protection; cost implications; synchronization / migration; authoritativeness; competition in registry services; existing Whois applications; data escrow, and registrar Port 43 Whois requirements (see section 5 of the Initial Report), on balance the Working Group concludes that there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. As a result, the Working Group recommends that:
The provision of thick Whois services should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future.

The WG expects numerous benefits as a result of requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. Nevertheless, the WG recognizes that a transition of the current thin gTLD registries would affect over 120 million domain name registrations and as such it should be carefully prepared and implemented. In section 7.2 of the Initial Report, the WG outlines a number of implementation considerations. In section 7.3 of the Initial Report the WG also provides other observations that emerged from this discussion which while not directly related to the question of thin or thick did and should receive due consideration by other bodies.

The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process.

Section II: Background:

ICANN specifies Whois service requirements for generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries through the Registry Agreement (RA) and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Registries and registrars satisfy their Whois obligations using different service models. The two common models are often characterized as “thin” and “thick” Whois registries. This distinction is based on how two distinct sets of data are managed. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name.

• A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar’s Whois service.
• With thin registries, registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor. COM and NET are examples of thin registries.
• Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois. INFO and BIZ are examples of thick registries.

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD Registries at its meeting on 22 September 2011. The Issue Report was expected to ‘not only consider a possible requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not’.

Following the delivery of the Final Issue Report, the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

Comment / Reply Periods

• Comment Open Date: 21 June 2013
• Comment Close Date: 14 July 2013 – 23:59 UTC
• Reply Open Date: 15 July 2013
• Reply Close Date: 4 August 2013 – 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-initial-21jun13-en.htm