Re: [council] 7 Aug letter from US Senate Judiciary Committee

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan --

Indeed it's of interest.  As the North American representative for registrars, 
I am planning to confer with the relevant GAC representatives about the 
concerns of the Congress (some of which make sense, while others need some 
help).

I note to the council that the issue of second-level trademark protections has 
been the most intensively debated and negotiated aspect of the new TLD program 
and yielded protections exceeding the original expectations of the IP 
community.  More importantly they far exceed the protections available in 
existing gTLDs and ccTLDs.

There was an extensive effort to design these protections by the many IP 
experts participating on the IRT.  The community negotiated and approved the 
protections in the STI report.  The Board and GAC then re-negotiated these 
issues prior to the approval of the program.  Calls for even further 
protections -- before we know if the designed changes are sufficient -- is 
premature and contributes to the culture of delay that has unfortunately been 
allowed to grow in this now seven-year effort. 

As I've said before, it's clear where the existing harm has occurred and 
sometimes continues to occur so a more reasoned effort would be one that 
addresses harms in existing g/ccTLDs before piling more on to new gTLDs.  I 
would be interested in the GNSO and ccNSO collaborating on such an effort, 
without impacting fair use and free speech, and without unreasonably blocking 
consumers from legitimately accessing name registrations.

I also personally agree with the letter's call for additional resources to be 
granted to the compliance function -- the RrSG has advocated for this for many 
years.  In addition to more impactful compliance efforts, there should be a 
discussion about what ICANN and the community are prepared to do with the 
results of enhanced compliance.  For example, at times there are calls to 
simply de-accredit registrars, or cancel the contracts of new registries, 
without consideration of what happens to consumers' domain names.  On the 
registrar side, we so far have been fortunate to have other registrars 
volunteer to pick up the slack (which isn't as easy as it sounds) when a 
registrar is taken out of the picture, but there's no permanent safety net for 
such a scenario.

Thanks --

Mason

On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:41 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 
> Perhaps of interest.
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/leahy-et-al-to-atallah-07a 
> ug12-en.pdf
> 
>