Showing posts with label Abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abuse. Show all posts

2018-02-26

Global Internet And Jurisdiction Conference 2018, Feb 26-28, Ottawa

Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference 2018 - Day 1

Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network LIVE on Feb 26, 2018, 2:00 pm ET

Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference 2018 - Day 3

Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network LIVE on Feb 28, 2018, 9:00 am ET


The Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network addresses the tension between the cross-border nature of the internet and national jurisdictions. Its Paris-based Secretariat facilitates a global multistakeholder process to enable transnational cooperation. Participants in the Policy Network work together to preserve the cross-border nature of the Internet, protect human rights, fight abuses, and enable the global digital economy.

Global Internet And Jurisdiction Conference 2018 | conference.internetjurisdiction.net: Feb 26-28, 2018, Ottawa, Canada.

WORKSTREAM I
DATA & JURISDICTION
How can transnational data flows and the protection of privacy be reconciled with lawful access requirements to address crime?

WORKSTREAM II
CONTENT & JURISDICTION
How can we manage globally-available content in light of the diversity of local laws and norms applicable on the internet?n

WORKSTREAM III
DOMAINS & JURISDICTION
How can the neutrality of the internet’s technical layer be preserved when national laws are applied to the Domain Name System?"

 Background (source: Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network):
The 2nd Global Internet and Jurisdiction Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network will be an important milestone in addressing one of the greatest global governance challenges of the 21st century: how to manage the coexistence of national laws on the internet.

 When they convene in Ottawa, Canada, on February 26-28, 2018, key senior-level representatives from a wide range of stakeholder groups and countries will work toward the development of policy standards and operational solutions to at the same time fight abuses, protect human rights, and enable the global digital economy. This is necessary to preserve the benefits generated by the cross-border nature of the Internet for future generations.

 The 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network is organized in partnership with the Government of Canada and institutionally supported by the OECD, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, the European Commission, and ICANN.

 Taking stock of the outcomes of the 1st Global Conference in 2016 in Paris, and the intersessional work in the Policy Network’s three Programs Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction, the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network will be an important opportunity.

 Stakeholders will decide on concrete focus and priorities, as well as a clear methodology and roadmap for the Policy Network to advance the development of policy standards and operational solutions for submission at the its third Global Conference. It will take place in Berlin in June 2019, and will be, after France (2016) and Canada (2018), organized in partnership with Germany.

 Time has come to accelerate the collective effort to address growing jurisdictional tensions on the internet through joint action. 



 feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-05-14

Domain Names, New gTLDs, DNS Abuse, ICANN as Chief Abuser

Why New gTLDs + IANA Transition May Be The Undoing of ICANN

Comments are now scheduled to close 20 May 2016 23:59 UTC (extended from May 13) on ICANN's Draft Report: New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse.You can read all comments submitted here.

Below is the comment submitted by the Editor of Domain Mondo, which is also here (pdf).

May 13, 2016
To ICANN:

As a domain name registrant, and editor of DomainMondo.com, I am submitting this comment to Draft Report: New gTLD Program Safeguards to Mitigate DNS Abuse.

For the new gTLDs mania, we are now entering the repudiation phase – a moment where “all the lies that had been built up alongside the excess are aired out in public.”

Your “draft report” misses the mark.

You claim your purported purpose was, and is, “to examine the potential for increases in abusive, malicious, and criminal activity in an expanded DNS and to make recommendations to pre-emptively mitigate those activities through a number of safeguards.”

Abusive, malicious, and criminal activity in an expanded DNS happens most frequently at the second level or registrant level, not at the first level or TLD which is controlled by the registry operator. Exceptions may be extortionate or other abusive practices, pricing, etc., by registry operators, which ICANN’s own Business Constituency and IPC can, and have, well advised you concerning, and which may be remediated through contractual terms and conditions, and effective Contract Compliance, which has been lacking at ICANN.

When ICANN unwisely decided to expand the global internet DNS and add more than 1000 new gTLDs (from just 22 gTLDs and 200+ ccTLDs), you exponentially increased the potential and actual opportunities for “abusive, malicious, and criminal activity“ in the global DNS without any safeguards for the global internet community which has suffered as a result, just so ICANN, and the domain name industry, could “make money.” You have not been a good steward of the global DNS.

In the absence of responsible stewardship of the global DNS by ICANN, you have left it to others, from sovereign nations like China (which essentially is now running its own DNS inside China via the ‘Great Firewall’ and legal requirements imposed upon registry operators, registrars, and registrants), to companies and individual consumers which are deploying TLD blockers on their own networks.

Contrary to what you apparently believe, less is often more, and excessive competition can be destructive, to markets, to companies, and to individual consumers.

Even worse, you have adopted the extortionate business model in-house at ICANN, by, in effect, forcing established trademark owners, to pay $185,000 plus annual fees, plus operating expenses, for a gTLD used primarily for defensive blocking, at the top-level, their trademark in the global DNS:

“ … closed and predominantly defensive .Brand TLDs account for roughly one-third of all new gTLD applications. Put another way, it would appear that .Brand TLDs are being disproportionately relied upon for ICANN revenue, even though they represent a tiny proportion of second-level domain names under management. For example, .Brand TLD registry operators, such as Apple Inc. or Yahoo! Inc. have activated only a mandatory minimum number of second-level domain names, yet they pay ICANN precisely the same fixed quarterly fees as certain open TLD registry operators, such as Vox Populi, which currently has over seven-thousand domain names under management.2 It is the latter category of TLD registry operators that are more likely to be controversial and thus ultimately more costly to ICANN in terms of political, administrative, compliance and legal resources.3…” --IPC Comment on Draft ICANN FY17 Operating Plan & Budget and Five-Year OperatingPlan Update, p.2 (pdf)

Accordingly, the hard truth is that ICANN, itself, is today probably the chief “abuser” of the global DNS. Now that ICANN is irrevocably committed to this ever downward spiral of irresponsible management and stewardship of the global DNS, I, like many others, have pretty much given up on ICANN. As a registrant, I am now in a defensive mode in response to ICANN’s failed stewardship, and have little confidence that ICANN will survive long-term once the IANA transition is complete. Most likely, the model proposed by China and others, of a government-led multistakeholder institution to replace ICANN, will eventually prevail due to demands of the global internet community for safety, stability, and security of the internet, and responsible stewardship in the global public interest, of a global public resource.

Respectfully submitted,
John Poole
Domain Name Registrant, and Editor, DomainMondo.com

References:
UPDATE: see also Lack of Trust in Internet Privacy and Security May Deter Economic and Other Online Activities | Department of Commerce - NTIA: "NTIA’s initial analysis only scratches the surface of this important area, but it is clear that policymakers need to develop a better understanding of mistrust in the privacy and security of the Internet and the resulting chilling effects."




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-02-04

ICANN, DNS Abuse, New gTLDs: Bad Policy, Horribly Implemented

DomainMondoShiningLight ©2013domainmondo.com All Rights Reserved
ICANN Questionnaire: Measuring DNS Abuse in New gTLDs:
[note: first 5 questions not included as they only asked for contact information of the person answering the questionnaire]

ICANN is seeking input on the effectiveness of nine safeguards put in place prior to the launch of the New gTLD Program that are intended to mitigate abusive, malicious and criminal behavior in the Domain Name System. In particular, ICANN is looking for ways to measure the effectiveness of these safeguards, which include:
  1. Vetting registry operators
  2. Requirement for DNSSEC deployment
  3. Requirement for Thick WHOIS records
  4. Prohibition of “wild carding”
  5. Removal of orphan glue records
  6. Centralization of Zone file access
  7. Abuse contact and documented anti-abuse policy requirements for registries and registrars
  8. Availability of expedited registry security request process
  9. High-security zone verification
Please answer the questions below to the best of your knowledge and from your own perspective.

6. Which activities do you consider to be DNS abuse?

Answer: Launching hundreds of unwanted, unneeded new gTLDs into the global DNS has to be DNS abuse problem #1 of which the known perpetrator is ICANN itself (along with a few hucksters hoping to make money by exploiting trademark owners and domain name registrants generally), while the victims are businesses, registrants, and the entire global internet community. What has been the effect of ICANN's new gTLDs? Financially failing gTLDs, predatory pricing, malware, rampant cybercrime and trademark infringement, "shady" new gTLDs that "fail to work as expected on the internet" (universal acceptance, collisions, etc.), resulting in reputable security firms advising their clients to block new gTLDs "wholesale" in order to protect the safety, stability, and security of their networks and users.

7. If you could put forth a globally accepted definition of DNS abuse, what would it be? This definition should be broad enough to cover various malicious uses of the DNS.

 Answer: Misuse and abuse of the global domain name system (DNS) by ICANN, TLD registry operators, registrars, registrants, or others having access to the DNS.

8. In your opinion, what are the most effective methods to measure the prevalence of abusive activities in the DNS?

Answer: Measure which TLDs are being blocked "wholesale" by network administrators and others globally for reasons of safety and security. Also measure which registry operators, registrars and registrants are connected to domains identified as having abusive activities. Contact firms like IID and Blue Coat to help ICANN staff begin to "understand and comprehend" the magnitude of the problem ICANN has created with its new gTLDs program, and the damage being inflicted upon the DNS and global internet community. ICANN's new gTLDs program is an example of "bad policy, 'horribly implemented.'"

9. As part of the New gTLD Program, ICANN introduced safeguards to mitigate potential DNS abuse in new gTLDs (listed above). How would you propose we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards?

Answer: Since ICANN itself is a source of the problem--see answer to #6 above--accordingly, "ICANN safeguards" were insufficient and ineffective from the start. If ICANN never had a clue how to measure the effectiveness of its own safeguards, ICANN should have never introduced new gTLDs.

 10. What has been your experience, personally or on behalf of an organization, with these safeguards? Please tell us:
A. Which were and/or were not effective? How so and why do you believe they were or were not effective?
B. Are there safeguards that should have been included but were not?

Answer to 10A&B: My experience has been as a user of the internet, domain name registrant, and website developer/publisher/editor. ICANN's "safeguards" were ineffective and insufficient--see answers to #6, #7, #8, #9 above. ICANN's new gTLDs program--bad policy, horribly implemented--is a complete indictment of ICANN and its own peculiar form of the "multistakeholder model" of internet governance.

Submitted to ICANN February 1, 2016

See also on Domain Mondo:



DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2016-01-27

ICANN New gTLD Program Review: Domain Name System, DNS Abuse

Or which of ICANN's new gTLDs are the "shadiest" in the global DNS?
Above: ICANN 2015 Presentation on "DNS Abuse Handling"

From the ICANN Announcement--
ICANN is currently engaged in data collection on DNS (Domain Name System) abuse and mitigation efforts implemented as part of the New gTLD Program. Members of the community and general public are invited to join ICANN on 28 January 2016 in an open discussion on the topic. This work will help inform the efforts of the review team examining the effects of the Program on Competition, Consumer Choice, and Consumer Trust, which will assess the safeguards in the Program as part of its work.

Discussion Details & How to Attend--

ICANN will hold two discussions to enable participation in all regions:
Discussion 1: Jan 28, 2016 at 02:00-03:30 UTC time converter (9-10:30pm EST Jan 27)
Discussion 2: Jan 28, 2016 at 16:00--17:30 UTC time converter (11am-12:30pm EST Jan 28)
Discussions will be conducted in English. Recordings will be posted at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/dns-abuse.

Register to attend the discussion and ICANN will send you an email with participation information OR unable to attend, but want to contribute? Give ICANN the OK to send you a questionnaire so you can tell ICANN about your experiences. Visit: http://survey.clicktools.com/app/survey/go.jsp?iv=25apb9wqx72s8

The goals of the discussion are to help formulate a definition of DNS abuse, brainstorm methods for measuring abuse, and gather qualitative, experiential input on whether safeguards to mitigate DNS abuse in new gTLDs have been effective. The discussion will be structured around 4 central topics, which participants are encouraged to consider prior to joining:

Topic 1: Which activities do you consider to be DNS abuse? If you could put forth a globally accepted definition of DNS abuse, what would it be? This definition should be broad enough to cover various malicious uses of the DNS.

 Topic 2: What are the most effective methods to measure the prevalence of abusive activities in the DNS?

Topic 3: As part of the New gTLD Program, ICANN introduced safeguards [PDF, 128 KB] to mitigate potential DNS abuse in new gTLDs (listed below). How can we measure the effectiveness of these safeguards?
  • Vetting registry operators
  • Requirement for DNSSEC deployment
  • Requirement for Thick WHOIS records
  • Prohibition of "wild carding"
  • Removal of orphan glue records
  • Centralization of Zone file access
  • Abuse contact and documented anti-abuse policy requirements for registries and registrars
  • Availability of expedited registry security request process
  • High-security zone verification
Topic 4: What has been your experience, personally or on behalf of an organization, with these safeguards? Please tell us: Which were and/or were not effective? How so and why do you believe they were or were not effective? Are there safeguards that should have been included but were not? Any remaining time will be open for questions and related discussion.

Further Information: DNS Abuse Review | ICANN New gTLDs

 ICANN's New gTLD Program has enabled hundreds of new top-level domains to enter into the Internet's root zone since the first delegation occurred in October 2013. Comprehensive reviews of the program have begun and will cover a variety of topics including competition, consumer trust and choice (CCT), security and stability, rights protection and other areas. Along with commissioning third-party analyses,ICANN is capturing stakeholder experiences regarding operation of the New gTLD Program and its effects on the domain name industry. Lessons learned as a result of these efforts will help shape future rounds of the program.

ICANN's Suggested Reading:
Source: ICANN Discussion: Reviewing New gTLD Program Safeguards Against DNS Abuse

See also on Domain Mondo:
See also:
DNS Abuse Handling (pdf)
Lost in .Space (Shady TLD Research, part 14) | Blue Coat
.ZIP URLs (or, Why You Should Block Domains on a TLD That Doesn't Have Any) | Blue Coat
Real World DNS Abuse: Finding Common Ground (Cisco)
"DNS Abuse" (Google SERP)
DNS is ubiquitous and it's easily abused to halt service or steal data | Network World
Finding and Fixing Open DNS Resolvers - Infoblox Experts Community
IID | IID Predicts Massive Botnet Takeover of IoT Devices by 2017 - Cybersecurity firm also anticipates a spate of domain failures, leading to demise of websites relying on them- IID




DISCLAIMER
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2015-08-12

ICANN, Public Interest, New gTLDs Registry Operator Code of Conduct

ICANN essentially "caved" to new gTLDs lobbyists (a/k/a "ICANN stakeholders") and failed to protect the public interest, including, but not limited to, domain name registrants, in its "New gTLD Registry Operator Code of Conduct" which is found in "Specification 9" of the Base Registry Agreement (Specification 9 is at pages 80-81)--relevant  portions below:

SPECIFICATION 9
REGISTRY OPERATOR CODE OF CONDUCT

 1. In connection with the operation of the registry for the TLD, Registry Operator will not, and will not allow any parent, subsidiary, Affiliate, subcontractor or other related entity, to the extent such party is engaged in the provision of Registry Services with respect to the TLD (each, a “Registry Related Party”), to: 
a. directly or indirectly show any preference or provide any special consideration to any registrar with respect to operational access to registry systems and related registry services, unless comparable opportunities to qualify for such preferences or considerations are made available to all registrars on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions;

 b. register domain names in its own right, except for names registered through an ICANN accredited registrar; provided, however, that Registry Operator may (a) reserve names from registration pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Agreement and (b) may withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator up to one hundred (100) names pursuant to Section 3.2 of Specification 5;

 c. register names in the TLD or sub-domains of the TLD based upon proprietary access to information about searches or resolution requests by consumers for domain names not yet registered (commonly known as, “front-running”); or
d. allow any Affiliated registrar to disclose Personal Data about registrants to Registry Operator or any Registry Related Party, except as reasonably necessary for the management and operations of the TLD, unless all unrelated third parties (including other registry operators) are given equivalent access to such user data on substantially similar terms and subject to substantially similar conditions.
2. If Registry Operator or a Registry Related Party also operates as a provider of registrar or registrar-reseller services, Registry Operator will, or will cause such Registry Related Party to, ensure that such services are offered through a legal entity separate from Registry Operator, and maintain separate books of accounts with respect to its registrar or registrar-reseller operations. 
(source: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.pdf: paragraphs 3-6, pp.80-81, contain nothing else of substance to registrants)

And what is the purported purpose of ICANN's Registry Operator Code of Conduct?

Code of Conduct FAQ [PDF, 456 KB]:
A3: The purpose of the Registry Operator Code of Conduct is to protect a TLD’s registrants.
A15: If a Registry Operator receives an exemption to the Code of Conduct, it is not contractually obligated to comply with the covenants in Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Specification 9 of the Registry Agreement. 

 This must be some kind of "joke" if ICANN thinks new gTLD domain name registrants are "protected" by this "Code of Conduct"--no wonder ICANN's Global Domains Division, its President Akram Atallah, its General Counsel John Jeffrey, and its Contract Compliance Officer Allen Grogan, were all stumped and befuddled when confronted with claims of the IPC and ICANN's Business Constituency about abusive practices by an ICANN new gTLD Registry operator-- or what Akram Atallah refers to as an "ICANN customer." ICANN wrote to the FTC (US) and OCA (Canada) asking for help because ICANN forgot to put any teeth into its Code of Conduct! To date nothing has been done--so much for registrant protection!

The ICANN Global Domains Division must be the most inept, incompetent and/or dysfunctional part of ICANN. Akram Atallah is a crony of outgoing ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade and had no experience in the domain name industry before he was appointed ICANN's "President" (yes, ICANN decided to have 2 Presidents!) coincident with the creation of the "Global Domains Division" by empire builder Fadi Chehade--i.e., Akram got Fadi hired as ICANN CEO and President, and in turn, Fadi appointed his lifelong friend and crony Akram to the newly created "President" Global Domains Division which pays a total comp package (including benefits) approaching one million dollars (USD) per year.

The rampant conflicts of interest at play in the new gTLDs program within ICANN are well known, all of which are symptomatic of ICANN's problematic organizational culture. Fixing "organizational culture" is really hard, and impossible when the two top officers are part of the problem. As Peter Thiel once said, "You'd have to fire everybody and start over."

 For Domain Name Registrants, ICANN is useless--better to just file a complaint directly with the Federal Trade Comission (FTC).

See also on Domain Mondo: ICANN, Domain Registry Operators, Monopoly, Antitrust, FTC Statement

 ref: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/new-gtld-registry-operator-code-of-conduct


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2014-12-15

ALAC Call for Freeze on New gTLDs, Safeguards, Public Interest, All Disregarded by ICANN

More chaos, confusion and dysfunction at ICANN over new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains) and ICANN's disregard of the public interest and the public safety of the global internet community--

Letter dated December 9, 2014, from the ICANN Business Constituency to Fadi Chehadé, CEO, ICANN, Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors (pdf):

"The Business Constituency (BC) supports the ALAC’s call for a freeze on contracting and
delegation of any new gTLD in highly-regulated sectors that have failed to implement GAC safeguards... The strings at issue here include:

Health and Fitness: .pharmacy .surgery .dentist .dds .hospital .medical .doctor
Financial: .bank .banque .creditunion .creditcard .insurance .ira .lifeinsurance .mutualfunds .mutuelle .vermogensberater .vesicherung .autoinsurance .carinsurance
Gambling: .bet .bingo .lotto .poker .spreadbetting .casino
Charity: .charity (and IDN Chinese equivalent)
Education: university 
....
In May-2014, the BC expressed concern that the safeguards adopted to date for strings associated with regulated industries and professions was falling short, and that such strings remain susceptible to fraud and abuse by potential registrants who wish enrich themselves at the expense of the general public. GAC and NTIA had raised concerns regarding NGPC’s proposed implementation of Category 1 safeguards. It was therefore unclear how PICs could provide effective safeguards, given a registry’s ability to amend or revoke its PICs [Public Interest Commitments] and the lengthy, expensive, and adversarial process required to enforce PICs by the limited class of parties able to bring enforcement actions.

 Nevertheless, during 2014 ICANN has continued to sign registry contracts with applicants for 
Category 1 strings, without requiring safeguards in registry PICs. That led the ALAC to request a freeze at the ICANN51 Public Forum. The ALAC resolution calls for freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated Category 1 strings until a joint ALAC-GAC working group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to protect the public interest. In response, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) voted on 7-Nov-2014 to disregard the ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments, including the ALAC request for a freeze....

The BC remains concerned that safeguards adopted for strings associated with regulated
industries and professions may fall short and that such strings remain susceptible to fraud and
abuse by potential registrants who wish enrich themselves at the expense of the general public.

Unless ICANN’s board and management respond appropriately, the continued delegation of new
gTLDs serving highly-regulated sectors will demonstrate ICANN’s lack of accountability to
consumers and to consumer protection authorities around the globe. Lack of action by ICANN’s board on this matter will likely be cited as evidence to justify new independent review mechanisms to allow the Internet community to challenge decisions of ICANN board and management. The BC would be among those citing this case as justification for stronger accountability mechanisms for ICANN...." (emphasis added, read full letter at link above)

Also see: Letter dated December 9, 2014, from Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board Of Directors (pdf)--excerpt:

".... We also remain concerned with the NGPC’s elimination of the requirement to consult with
relevant authorities (regulatory and quasi-regulatory bodies where applicable) in case of doubt
about the authenticity of credentials, and the requirement to conduct periodic post-registration
checks to ensure that Registrants’ continue to possess valid credentials and generally conduct
their activities in the interests of the consumers they serve. The GAC advised these procedures
to protect the public from falling prey to scammers and other criminals...." (emphasis added)

And the Obama Administration wants to surrender the US Department of Commerce (NTIA) contract and all oversight of ICANN--the scammers and other cybercriminals must be smiling! Of course when it comes to the new gTLDs program, ICANN was never interested in the public interest--it's all about the money--that's why we now have over 1000 new gTLDs being irresponsibly flooded into the domain name system (DNS).

see also: ICANN Seeking Panel Members for New gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution

UPDATE: Preliminary Report | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 11 Dec 2014: "... After discussion, the sense of the Committee was that it was not supportive of halting the contracting and delegating process for the strings identified in the ALAC Statement, but the Committee decided to engage as soon as possible with the ALAC to better understand their concerns about the PICs, and to discuss a path forward. The Committee decided to prepare a response to the ALAC to provide the rationale for its decision, and to take steps to begin a dialogue with the ALAC. Also, the Committee agreed to take steps to initiate a dialogue with the GAC to discuss its concerns with the PICs...."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2014-11-10

ICANN Dysfunctions and Abuse, New gTLDs, TMCH

More ICANN dysfunctions and abuse re: new gTLDs and TMCH--

"As explained in my letter dated March 20th 2014, Domainoo, a French domain name provider for big companies, has been facing a big issue concerning TMCH labels authorized for trademarks with accents (umlaut, acute accent …).

"In order to meet your requirement concerning exact match between trademark and proof of use, many clients have been obliged to protect in the TMCH trademarks with accents. Unfortunately, we learned later, checking the corresponding labels, that corresponding domain names without accents were not authorized and non-addable. 

"We have participated to many meetings in which we met people from other countries facing the same issues. Despite our letters, nothing has changed and we have been obliged, in order to offer a strong protection to our clients to ask them to protect in the TMCH new trademarks without the accents. Thus, they have been invoiced twice to obtain the good protection.

"As already explained, until TMCH was created, all previous Sunrise Periods have accepted these trademarks to lock or register domain names without accents (trademark Moët used to protect moet.xxx for example) and you can check with .PARIS that the Registry will authorize these trademarks during its priority phase.

"The big French company MHCS, part of Moet Hennessy group, a subsidiary of LVMH group, is associated to this letter and would like to receive a reimbursement or a compensation for all the unnecessary costs they have had to bear with the inscription of many useless trademark (according to your conditions of course) !

"Thank you in advance for your attention and your efforts so that our customers have not the feeling that they have been abused by ICANN and the TMCH." (emphasis added)

Online document (pdf):

Domainoo Letter to ICANN re TMCH, trademarks











































Domain Mondo comment: Not to worry--lots of companies and people have been abused by ICANN, excepting of course, its favored customers: certain registry operators; service providers; and registrars;--remember, for ICANN, "it's all about the money"--the public interest be damned.




Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Domain Mondo archive