IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names  
Home | Advertise on idnforums | Premium Membership

Go Back   IDN Forums - Internationalized Domain Names > IDN Discussions > General Discussion

General Discussion Feel free to talk about anything and everything in this board.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 02:55 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1685
555 has disabled reputation
Patience.

source doc

Last edited by alpha; 14th April 2009 at 08:58 PM.. Reason: url fixed
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 03:14 AM
555 555 is offline
ком.ком コム.コム
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,141
iTrader: (33)
Rep Power: 1685
555 has disabled reputation
Re: Patience.

The NetChoice Coalition
Promoting Convenience, Choice, and Commerce on The Net
Steve DelBianco, Executive Director
1401 K St NW, Suite 502
Washington, DC 20005
202-420-7482
www.netchoice.org
13 April 2009
Dr. Paul Twomey, President
Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chairman
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Submitted via email to 2gtld-evaluation@icann.org
Subject: Comment regarding gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook version 2
In our comments regarding version 1 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG), NetChoice
endorsed the comments of the Business Constituency and other groups raising similar concerns
over abusive registrations. We also offered two suggested improvements to Evaluation
question 31 of Module 2, where applicants are to describe their approach to ‘minimize abusive
registrations and other activities that affect the legal rights of others.’
To summarize, we recommended two changes in ICANN’s approach to this critical evaluation
question:
1. Raise the curtain. Provide for greater transparency and stakeholder inquiry of an
applicant’s proposed mechanisms to minimize abusive registrations and other activities
that affect the legal rights of others.
An essential aspect of transparency is to let stakeholders query applicants about
specifics and contingencies regarding their plan for rights protection. ICANN must
require applicants to provide substantive responses to these queries, and to publish
questions and responses for public review. Only this level of transparency will enable the
stakeholder community to evaluate proposed mechanisms and compare them to
superior mechanisms offered by other applicants.
2. Raise the bar. Increase the criteria for earning a minimum acceptable score on
proposed policies to minimize abusive registrations.
A passing score of 1 on Question 31 should only be given to applicants whose proposed
mechanisms meet registry best practices for minimizing abusive registrations. The
standard, or ‘bar’ for minimizing abusive registrations should be set by looking at the
best mechanisms employed by existing registries or proposed by other registry
applicants in the new round of gTLDs.
[see NetChoice comments at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-ev.../msg00017.html ]
At ICANN’s Mexico City meeting, we learned that version 2 of the DAG does not include
requested changes to improve mechanisms for rights protection or for minimizing abusive
registrations. (Question 31, for instance, was not amended in version 2, other than to re-number
2
it as question 43.) We are now anticipating that rights protection mechanisms will be
addressed in future versions of the DAG, pending the work of the Implementation
Recommendation Team (IRT) and subsequent community review.
Hopefully, the IRT work will lead to new minimum rights protection mechanisms for registry
applicants. In DAG version 1, no minimum mechanisms were required, and an applicant could
receive a passing grade for merely describing their intended mechanisms, even if they were
likely to have little effect in preventing abusive registrations.
We are therefore encouraged that the IRT will recommend specific mechanisms, possibly
including a global brand registry, thick Whois, rapid take-down, etc. Presumably, some level of
implementation of these mechanisms will survive through community review and board
endorsement, and become minimum requirements for new TLD applications.
But these mechanisms will be designed to fight existential threats from today’s abusive
registration schemes, so some measures will soon become obsolete or irrelevant. Just as
generals ask for weapons systems to win the previous war, ICANN may end up with defense
measures that won’t work against rapidly-evolving threats from notoriously clever criminal
elements. ICANN must move beyond static definitions of present mechanisms, and find a way
to accommodate dynamic proposals to fight new threats to consumers and brand owners.
Moreover, it’s inherent in the ICANN consensus process that these minimum mechanisms will
be less than consumers and brand owners want to have, and more than aspiring registries want
to offer. Without a more adaptive and dynamic process, ICANN's consensus approach will
settle for minimum mechanisms that will satisfy no one.
Consequently, the next version of the DAG is likely to include rights protection requirements that
are minimally effective against today’s threats, and not necessarily adaptive to tomorrow’s
threats. For that reason, we encourage ICANN to begin now with consideration of our
recommendations to improve the process for application evaluation in Module 2.
Whatever mechanisms are eventually adopted as minimum requirements, ICANN should be
designing a more transparent and interactive process for letting evaluators and stakeholders
query applicants about how their proposed mechanisms will work against emerging threats.
More important, our second recommendation envisions a process where competing TLD
applicants (and their registry operators) are rewarded for proposing ever more effective and
adaptive rights protection mechanisms. New threats will evolve and vendors will respond with
solutions much faster than can be accommodated by ICANN’s policy development process.
The need for these kinds of process improvements can best be demonstrated by an actual
example:
About a dozen members of three stakeholder groups (Business, Intellectual Property,
and Registry Constituencies) met in Mexico City in March to discuss rights protection
mechanisms that current gTLD operators could offer when they propose IDN
(Internationalized Domain Name) versions of their current TLDs.
There’s a real need for rights protection mechanisms for IDN translations and
transliterations of existing gTLDs, which are a special case that’s not likely to be
addressed by the broader agenda of the IRT. At the same time, there is building
pressure from ccTLD operators to launch their ‘fast track’ IDN ccTLDs while the gTLD
Guidebook undergoes lengthy debate and revisions. We believe that the billions of
3
people who don’t use the Latin alphabet deserve to have access to IDN versions of
common existing gTLDs -- not just IDN versions of their ccTLD.
The specifics of this new mechanism are still under discussion, but the general idea is
that current registries want to propose multiple IDN versions of the gTLDs they operate
today. Being aware of the concerns of global brands and current domain name owners,
some current gTLD registries are contemplating unprecedented protections for current
domain name registrants.
First, current gTLD registries may impose strict limits on the availability of existing
second-level address strings in any IDN versions of the gTLD that they would operate.
Under this proposal, the registrant of a NetChoice.org address would be the only person
allowed to register ‘NetChoice’ in IDN versions of .org.
Second, this proposal would apply to IDN second-level domains as well. For example, a
registrant holding Korean and Arabic script versions of ‘NetChoice’ in the .org TLD would
be the only one who could register those strings in Korean and Arabic script versions of
.org.
The idea is simple: domain holders would not be required to defensively register current
gTLD domain names in any IDN version of that TLD run by the same registry.
This is an actual example of innovation that could dramatically improve rights protection and
minimize user confusion in the case of IDN versions of existing gTLDs. There will undoubtedly
be other examples of innovations proposed by applicants seeking to improve their chances of
winning a TLD contract, especially when competing with other applicants for the same or similar
string. Applicants could, for example, propose security and stability mechanisms that exceed
ICANN’s present minimum requirements.
In the next version of the Guidebook, ICANN should design a process that actively encourages
applicants to offer more than the minimum requirements, and then rewards that kind of initiative
– with more than just an extra point on a single evaluation question.
Another process improvement would be to harvest these innovations into an evolving set of
‘best practices’ for aspiring registry operators. Competing applicants who meet the most
practice mechanisms could be rewarded with extra evaluation points.
For all of the above reasons, we wish to repeat our DAG version 1 comments and ask that they
be kept under active consideration for the next version of the DAG.
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director, NetChoice
About NetChoice
NetChoice is a coalition of global e-commerce companies. NetChoice has consistently advocated at
ICANN for measures to raise the integrity of users’ Internet experience, while at the same time increasing
the Internet’s availability to the next billion users. In a hearing before the U.S. Congress regarding
ICANN’s approach to Internet governance, we testified about threats to the integrity of the domain name
system from abuses such as fraud and cyber squatting1.
1 http://www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/centers/global/ICANN Internet Governance - Is It Working.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 04:39 AM
domainguru's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (14)
Rep Power: 2520
domainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura about
Re: Patience.

I "notice" VeriSign are part of this group, but hey, lots of other members as well, powerful ones at that. Great find.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 04:58 AM
Rubber Duck's Avatar
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Czech Republic (For those of you from USA = Chechnya)
Posts: 15,929
iTrader: (59)
Rep Power: 4513
Rubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura aboutRubber Duck has a spectacular aura about
Re: Patience.

We're in the money, we're in the money;
We've got a lot of what it takes to get along!
We're in the money, that sky is sunny....
__________________
All offers to sell are void.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 05:03 AM
alibuba's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 408
iTrader: (5)
Rep Power: 692
alibuba is on a distinguished roadalibuba is on a distinguished roadalibuba is on a distinguished roadalibuba is on a distinguished roadalibuba is on a distinguished roadalibuba is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to alibuba
Re: Patience.

great news coming along very nicely. lets hope for the best boys.

im dancing with this little fucker.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 06:05 AM
phio's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arctic Circle
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: (31)
Rep Power: 675
phio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this pointphio is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Patience.

__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 06:36 AM
sbe18's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,337
iTrader: (10)
Rep Power: 1646
sbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enoughsbe18 will become famous soon enough
Re: Patience.

Wow...
Yahoo, Verisign, EBay , Oracle,TW/AOL, NewsCorp and IAC with ecommerce retailers all coordinating efforts with one lobbyist in DC !!!!!!

All 7 firms are strident global TM and copyright litigators...


TW/AOL trademark lawyers are world famous litigators...
movies, music ........

they do not want to spend millions to defensively register 1000's of brandname
domain dot coms or to spend money for 1000's of WIPO filings....

For Verisign to have signed off on joining this lobbying , and for this to be submitted to the ICANN's chair and CEO is very very striking based on their lack of DNAME statements in the last 2 years....(Japan cctld exception)


wow......dot com IDN.IDN's........finally with a Verisign silent stamp....
and no defensive reg's or implied tack on fees mentioned AT ALL.....

the scream you will hear in the summer/fall is the Chinese xxxxxxx.com.cn owners......ouch.....
thank you very much for finding and posting this...


Steve
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 11:08 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,864
iTrader: (60)
Rep Power: 2205
bwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enoughbwhhisc will become famous soon enough
Re: Patience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbe18 View Post
Wow...
Yahoo, Verisign, EBay , Oracle,TW/AOL, NewsCorp and IAC with ecommerce retailers all coordinating efforts with one lobbyist in DC !!!!!! All 7 firms are strident global TM and copyright litigators...TW/AOL trademark lawyers are world famous litigators...
movies, music ........they do not want to spend millions to defensively register 1000's of brandname domain dot coms or to spend money for 1000's of WIPO filings....

For Verisign to have signed off on joining this lobbying , and for this to be submitted to the ICANN's chair and CEO is very very striking based on their lack of DNAME statements in the last 2 years....(Japan cctld exception). wow......dot com IDN.IDN's........finally with a Verisign silent stamp....
and no defensive reg's or implied tack on fees mentioned AT ALL.....

the scream you will hear in the summer/fall is the Chinese xxxxxxx.com.cn owners......ouch.....thank you very much for finding and posting this...
Steve
Verisign has been registering idn.com and idn.net for 9 years. Be hard for anyone to stake much claim on anything there beyond blatent TM infringements. Verisign paved their own road long ago.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 11:40 AM
domainguru's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: (14)
Rep Power: 2520
domainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura aboutdomainguru has a spectacular aura about
Re: Patience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwhhisc View Post
Verisign has been registering idn.com and idn.net for 9 years. Be hard for anyone to stake much claim on anything there beyond blatent TM infringements. Verisign paved their own road long ago.
Long, long, long ago .....
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 14th April 2009, 06:09 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 255
iTrader: (1)
Rep Power: 734
dave_5 is on a distinguished roaddave_5 is on a distinguished roaddave_5 is on a distinguished roaddave_5 is on a distinguished roaddave_5 is on a distinguished roaddave_5 is on a distinguished road
Thumbs up Re: Patience.

"We believe that the billions of people who don’t use the Latin alphabet deserve to have access to IDN versions of
common existing gTLDs -- not just IDN versions of their ccTLD."

Its about time!! Great news
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:11 PM.

Site Sponsors
Your ad here
buy t-shirt
מחיר הזהב

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright idnforums.com 2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54