Phil Corwin of the Internet Commerce Association (the “ICA) just published a post, sounding a very loud alarm, to head off what would be the first step that would make all .Com domain name subject to the Uniform Rapid Suspension Policy (URS) which allows “trademark holders” to go after domain names.
To remind everyone the URS which is only in effect for new gTLD’s is now being proposed in the new contract for the .Travel Registry which is not a new gTLD but an incumbent Top Level Domain like .com, .net and .org.
Under the URS a “trademark holder” can file a cheap complaint, much cheaper than a UDRP and get a decision within generally two weeks rather than a few months. A domain holder hit with a URS cannot ask for a three member panel and are great restricted as to the length of the response they can file. While a UDRP can cost a “trademark holder” $1,500 to file a case plus a few thousand in attorney fees, a URS is around $500 and can include multiple domains and since it’s basically filed on a form, the time it takes a trademark holder or their attorney to file and plead a case is literally just minutes making the attorney fees a fraction of the cost of prosecuting a UDRP.
If a Complainant wins a URS they don’t get the ownership of the domain like the do in a UDRP but the domain registration is suspended. The domain owner cannot use the domain for the length of its registration, nor can the domain owner renew the domain. So if a domain holder loses a URS the domain will delete at the end of its registration term. It might go to the domain name registrar and be sold off at some point as one of its assets or drop and go to an auction.
Simply put ICANN is trying to add the URS to the .Travel Contract.
If ICANN gets the URS added to the .Travel contract they will get it added to all legacy TLD’s as their contracts come up for renewal.
The .net contract is up for renewal in 2017.
The .Com contract is up in 2018.
Here is a portion of what Mr. Corwin wrote in his post:
“”On May 12th ICANN posted the “Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement” for a period of public comment ending June 21st.
The current Registry Agreement for .TRAVEL, like other registry agreements, provides for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met. It also provides that upon renewal, changes may be made to the terms of the Agreement.
The proposed draft RA for .Travel includes this provision:
Dispute Resolution Mechanisms. Registry Operator will comply with the following dispute resolution mechanisms as they may be revised from time to time:
… the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (“URS”) adopted by ICANN (posted at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/urs), including the implementation of determinations issued by URS examiners. (Emphasis added)
This is top-down, staff-driven policymaking at its worst and is thoroughly unacceptable.
It would make all domains at .Travel, a legacy gTLD and not a new gTLD, subject to URS, which is not a consensus policy applicable to all gTLDs.
To that end,
It appears that ICANN staff, on its own initiative and with no advance consultation with the community, are attempting to impose an “implementation detail” for the new gTLD program into a legacy gTLD renewal contract.
That would effectively convert the URS into a consensus policy without any community discussion of whether it should be, and set a precedent that could bring the URS to .Com, .Net, .Org and all other legacy gTLDs as their own RAs come up for renewal.
It was well understood at the time that the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) were debated and created for the new gTLD program’s Applicant Guidebook that they were to be regarded as “implementation details” for the new gTLD program and not as “consensus policy” applicable to all gTLDs.
ICANN is attempting to preempt that entire consensus policy discussion by imposing the URS on an incumbent gTLD.
However this very important decision is one for the entire community to make after informed discussion, not for ICANN staff to make in a manner that preempts the discussion–
We need to review the actual performance of the URS, including the quality of arbitration decisions.
We need to see if it is going to be materially changed in any way – especially if it is going to be altered to include a domain transfer option, which could convert it into a $500 vehicle for domain trolls to attempt abusive domain hijacking.
And, most important, we have to understand how well it meshes with any contemplated changes in the UDRP, since the receipt of the RPM Issues Report may well kick off a policy development process (PDP) on UDRP reform as well.
ICANN needs to hear from the global Internet community, in significant volume, that imposing the URS on an incumbent gTLD is unacceptable because it would mean that ICANN staff, not the community, is determining that URS should be a consensus policy and thereby undermining the entire bottom-up policy process.
Domain suspensions are serious business – in fact they were at the heart of the SOPA proposal that inspired millions of emails to the US Congress in opposition.
This is clearly an issue for domain registrants – registrants at new gTLDs knew that their domains were subject to the Trademark Clearinghouse claims notice system and the URS, but registrants at incumbent gTLDs have never been subject to URS and should only become so if the community decides it should become a consensus policy.
But this should also be an issue for every other ICANN stakeholder and global domain registrant who wants to hold the line against staff-driven usurpation of the community’s right to initiate and make policy decisions.
So get your comments in by June 21st if you want to see the community remain in control of this key policy decision rather than have ICANN staff determine it via private contract negotiations. ICA will be commenting against including the URS in this RA, but we need lots of company.
Here’s what to do:
Prepare a comment to ICANN and send it to comments-travel-renewal-12may15@icann.org by June 21st. Your comment can be in the text of the email or attached as a Word, PDF, or similar document type. A draft comment template is provided below that you can use as is or modify to reflect your personal point of view.
Besides sending your own comment, contact at least two other individuals who you think are opposed to having ICANN staff use the contracting process to put the URS in place at incumbent gTLDs, provide a link to this ICA post, and ask them to submit their own comments as well. And ask them to do the same to ensure maximum input to ICANN. And it wouldn’t hurt to also contact other trade associations and public interest groups as well as spread the word on social media.
This initiative can be stopped – but that will be best ensured if ICANN gets lots of comments that oppose including the URS in the .Travel RA.
Act now or be prepared to see the same tactic used to impose the URS on .Com, .Net, .Org and other incumbent gTLDs. Don’t complain then if you’re not willing to take a few minutes and speak up now.
And here’s that draft template for comments:
To comments-travel-renewal-12may15@icann.org
Dear ICANN:
I am writing in regard to the Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement issued for public comment on May 12, 2015.
I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a modified version of the new gTLD rights protection mechanisms in Specification 7 of the proposed RA, especially Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS).
All the new gTLD RPMs were implementation details of the new gTLD program and are not ICANN consensus policies applicable to all registries and registrars. The URS can become a consensus policy only after a full policy development process (PDP) engaged in by the entire ICANN community of stakeholders. The ICANN community has not even received the new gTLD RPM Issues Report that staff will be providing to the GNSO in September 2015.
Imposing URS on an incumbent gTLD via the contracting process is an absolutely unacceptable staff intervention into the policymaking process. Approval of this draft contract would constitute top-down, staff-driven policymaking in direct violation of ICANN’s stated commitment to the bottom-up, private sector led policy development process.
Therefore, the .Travel renewal RA should be referred for Board consideration only after Specification 7/URS has been removed from the agreement, along with all other provisions derived from the new gTLD RA that are not established consensus policies applicable to incumbent gTLDs.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
[Name, title, organization]
Sickening advantage seeking fine print whores
I am sending an email later today, and hope many others do too.
I paste the template from above here again so that it is easier to find:
To comments-travel-renewal-12may15@icann.org
Dear ICANN:
I am writing in regard to the Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement issued for public comment on May 12, 2015.
I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a modified version of the new gTLD rights protection mechanisms in Specification 7 of the proposed RA, especially Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS).
All the new gTLD RPMs were implementation details of the new gTLD program and are not ICANN consensus policies applicable to all registries and registrars. The URS can become a consensus policy only after a full policy development process (PDP) engaged in by the entire ICANN community of stakeholders. The ICANN community has not even received the new gTLD RPM Issues Report that staff will be providing to the GNSO in September 2015.
Imposing URS on an incumbent gTLD via the contracting process is an absolutely unacceptable staff intervention into the policymaking process. Approval of this draft contract would constitute top-down, staff-driven policymaking in direct violation of ICANN’s stated commitment to the bottom-up, private sector led policy development process.
Therefore, the .Travel renewal RA should be referred for Board consideration only after Specification 7/URS has been removed from the agreement, along with all other provisions derived from the new gTLD RA that are not established consensus policies applicable to incumbent gTLDs.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
[Name, title, organization]
At the risk of asking a probably unpopular question, why should the URS apply to registrants in TLDs that were delegated post-2012 and not to those in TLDs that were delegated prior to 2012? Phil, is your point just one about ICANN procedure or is there a substantive rationale as well?
Mason:
The question of whether URS should be applicable to legacy gTLDs is identical to the question of whether it should become a consensus policy. That is a question for the community to decide, via a PDP, after we receive the staff Issues report on the new RPMs later this year.
For ICANN staff to take the new gTLD RA as their starting point for renewing the RAs for legacy gTLDs is to deprive the community of any say on the matter. It is top-down, staff-imposed policy determination rather than bottom-up community consensus. It is wrong and unacceptable.
Best, Philip
Mason Cole,
the problem is looking at it superficially gives a distorted image.
old TLDs might seem a minority, so it might seem somewhat fair to adapt it to the majority.
But looking beneath the surface, from the volume of registrations we see old TLDs are actually the majority, and new TLDs a minority.
consider a village with about 130 houses (millions of com+net+org+…).
Its a great village, so people want to come in and build houses.
Authorities allow the construction of 3 new houses under the condition of paying an extra tax permanently.
Now authorities want to impose this permanent tax to all the houses in the village because “hey, lets be fair with these 3 new houses”??
It even looks like those 3 houses are just a mere tool used by authorities to steal what was valuable there originally.
And its even worse when you realize that from the ca. 3 million registrations in new TLDs many are “fake” registrations, like registries registering their best names or unsolicited xyz domains that appear in accounts.
the debate was if new TLDs were just a money grab, now maybe it should be, if besides a money grab its also a “rights grab”.
By the way, I didn’t expressed myself correctly…
I meant the debate before was: are new TLDs a money grab or a legitimate development of the namespace.
now: are new TLDs a money grab & rights grab or a legitimate development of the namespace.
Sorry to be pessimistic but what makes you think Icann cares what you say?
Icann puts up a public relations front that they want to hear your opinion. However, they do whatever they want to do. Plus, once they move to Switzerland they won’t even ask your opinion.
20 yrs from now, historians will say that giving up parental control over Icann (internet) was the U.S. biggest mistake in this century. The question is, will Clinton get the blame or Obama?
Meyer
I protested the Verisign contract to be renewed with the guarantee 7% increase in contract that got signed in 2012.
I was not the only one lots of comments were filed with ICANN.
The Department of Commerce jumped in and stopped the rate increases.
I contribute $10,000 a year to the ICA so our opinion is known to ICANN.
Doing nothing certainly won’t help
ICANN will not listen to silence.
You have to do what you can do to change the native
I agree that ‘silence’ benefits Icann.
However, complaining to Icann is an uphill battle.
I further agree that Phil is worth everything he is paid.
And, if it was not for Phil, domain owners would have no voice in DC.
I have been with Phil (and Nat) at a few Icann hearings and functions in DC.
Bottom line, if the Commerce Dept. had not intervened because of the complaints received by the Commerce Dept and U.S. congressmen, VeriSign and Icann would have gotten the increase.
VeriSign and Icann have a strong lobbyist staff in DC.
I wonder if Icann will maintain their DC office once they no longer answer to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce?
Interestingly, urs was adopted last year for dot us extension. When Corwin was talking about legacy extensions, I thought, it’s already been done, slipped under the radar.
But dot us is ccTLD, not gTLD.