From the Fairwinds blog today:
“”CADNA has refocused its efforts on working with members of Congress on these issues and working more diligently toward developing legislation to help resolve the problems. Long term solutions to the Internet’s systemic problems that are within ICANN’s control are unlikely to emerge from within the ICANN community, but rather from the governments and its agencies who are ultimately responsible for defending the public interest.””
“Now more than ever, as ICANN is developing plans to drastically alter the DNS and the shape of the Internet as a whole, it is crucial to move away from the paper – to move beyond simply providing comments – and take up bigger, more effective action. The incentives to achieve certain outcomes in the ICANN policy development process are too great for us to assume the outcomes are not predictable – paper tigers will not stop a chaotic introduction of new TLDs and they will not clean up WHOIS or stop all of the registrar abuse”
“Regulatory action needs to be both domestic and international and the time to act is now.”
What’s gotten CADNA so upset.
Apparently ICANN isn’t listening to them either.
“”What happened with the Expression of Interest (EOI) program is a prime example of this. The idea behind the EOI process was to create a data-gathering model that would gauge if there was a demand among new and existing registry operators for new gTLDs. Though the EOI process was created to respond to Internet users questioning the need for new gTLDs, ICANN first put forth a flawed EOI model and then did not follow through to create a model that satisfied its constituents. Earlier this week, ICANN announced that in order to more quickly launch new gTLDs, it had cancelled the EOI program. Peter Dengate Thrush, ICANN’s Board Chairman, said “we are now so close to launching the new gTLD process that we simply thought it better to move ahead as quickly as possible without adding the EOI element.”
By doing this, ICANN has willfully decided to ignore its users’ concerns in order to quickly rollout a program that will bring in millions of dollars for this “nonprofit”.
Right
We agree with Fairwinds on this.
The EOI should have went forward, there was no reason other than rushing the process through for it to have been removed.
But the bigger issue is that CADNA is now on record saying they are on the offense.
CADNA will continue to voice their opinions to ICANN, just like I do and the ICA does and several domainers like George Kirikos does on a regular basis, but CADNA appearently just learned what we knew long ago, ICANN isn’t listening.
So CADNA is in Washington trying to push their agenda, and we should all expect a Utah type bill at some point.
Someone ask me this question the other day:
Can a complainant also file an ACPA after winning a UDRP for the domains?
If yes, does the complainant then first need to give back the domains it won in UDRP?
Has it ever happened?
rkb
A complainant could certain file an ACPA if he loses a UDRP.
A complainant can also counterclaim a ACPA if a domainer loses a UDRP and then brings a federal case to stop the transfer.
I’m not aware of any situation where someone has went the UDRP way, gotten the domain and then brought an action.
Just because someone does not agree with your proposal does not mean they did not listen to you
Jeff
In isolation this is true, but if there is a history of ICANN voting against the vast majority of opinions then you can conclude they are in fact not listening
What Fairwinds is saying here that in reference to the EOI the vast majority of comments were in favor of this by several groups from different areas and they ignored not just CADNA comments but the vast majority of comments and went the other way
Again
In the case of the EOI, I would have to say that the Board did listen to the majority of the opinions, and the majority were actually against an EOI.
At the ICANN meeting in Nairobi, the majority of the Stakeholder groups were against the EOI, as well as the GAC.
What is interesting here is that the main group that wanted an EOI process was the ICANN staff and the Board did not listen to them, they listened to their Constituency
Mike:
I’ve also heard what Jeffrey Eckhaus is saying to be correct.
You need to remember how ICANN operates too… the more remote and dangerous the meeting location, the more nefarious they are as to making “decisions”. This last meeting was an example… see, there was a definite absence of a lot of on site participants due to the security “scare” issues. So saying that the general opinion at the meeting was one way or another may be true but the fact that a large portion of the usual suspects being absent can skew that position a lot.
This happened at Montevideo as well.
Mike,
Thanks for explaining if an ACPA can be brought after a succesful UDRP win.
Regards.
Regarding CADNA:
Has anyone in the domaining community ever approached CADNA about coming up with a common system to fight abuses from both sides eg from cybersquatting as well as trademark over reaching from tm holders?
May be CADNA and ICA can come up with a common ground for for all and ask ICANN to make it as a policy?
Just my 2 cents!
As I prognosticated on CircleID, I had a strong feeling the EOI would not pass, making one of the overarching issues, root scaling, somewhat irrelevant or not really that crucial.
I know that everything I supported such as EOI, Vertical Integration and the issue of the IP Clearing House was shot down. ICANN does not seem to listen to new entrants and likes to keep their status quo. I was even rejected by the Business Constituency which is run by a few people. The reason: conflict of interest 🙂 ICANN has not listened to anything I have said and they have not listened to many of the new entrants. A lot of flip-flopping is happening. I hope there will be progress.
Let me not get started with conflict of interest at ICANN. Big business and the “real” insiders always win it seems. Entrepreneurs like me sit and wait and are being lied to 3+ times about dates and the launch of gTLDs.
Constantine Roussos
.music
http://www.music.us
While reading your comment about working with CADNA reminded me of a
well known fable. (posted for the people that might not know it.)
A scorpion asks a frog for help crossing a river. Intimidated by the
scorpion’s prominent stinger, the frog demurs.
“Don’t be scared,” the scorpion says. “If something happens to you,
I’ll drown.” Moved by this logic, the frog puts the scorpion on his
back and wades into the river. Half way across, the scorpion stings
the frog.
The dying frog ask, “How could you? You know that you’ll drown?”
“It’s my nature,” gasps the sinking scorpion.
CADNA is in the game for the money.
More they scare the IP holders, more they make.
rkb asked :
Can a complainant also file an ACPA after winning a UDRP for the domains?
If yes, does the complainant then first need to give back the domains it won in UDRP?
Though I know of no cases where this has happened, it is not precluded by the ACPA statute. Just because a Complainant won a UDRP action does not prevent or prohibit him from filing an ACPA Lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court.
It is common knowledge that the U.S. (or other country for that matter) courts do not consider the rulings of a UDRP Panel to be controlling or of any merit in condsidering whether or not a Respondent is in violation of the ACPA. Therefore, it stands to reason that a victorious Complainant can also file under the ACPA for damages incurred at the rate of $100,000 per domain.
Howard
I think rkb is asking if someone files a UDRP and wins, get the name back, can they then sue the former domain owner for damages while they had the domain
Yes, that’s exactly what I asked as I didn’t know the answer myself and had never heard it happening.
Also are the damages automatically calculated at 100k or is it between 1k and 100k?
What is meant by the actual damages?
Only you lawyers can answer these 🙂
I thought that I answered that with a “yes”.
Mike and Howard,
Thanks for your answers.
If one single constituency doesn’t get what they want, they try again in a different way. Predictable.
And very predictable that a group like CADNA would present the views of a single, small, non-core group (basically, large brand name owners) as being the concerns of all users. The truth is that most stakeholders within ICANN were displeased about the EoI process, which is why it went. And now the CADNA folk who generally didn’t even attend the meeting can’t quite grasp it.