Showing posts with label URS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label URS. Show all posts

2016-03-18

WIPO: Domain Cybersquatting Cases Up in 2015, Driven by New gTLDs


Cybersquatting and Internet Domain Names in 2015: WIPO Director General Francis Gurry and Director of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Erik Wilbers discuss WIPO domain name dispute resolution cases in 2015. Published by WIPO on Mar 17, 2016


Trends in Cybersquatting and Internet Domain Names in 2015: WIPO Director General Francis Gurry shares his key takeaways from WIPO domain name dispute resolution cases in 2015. Published on Mar 17, 2016

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) issued a press release today, stating that amid ICANN's roll-out of hundreds of new generic Top-Level Domains (new gTLDs) such as .GURU, .NINJA and .NYC, trademark owners filed 2,754 cases under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) with WIPO in 2015, an increase of 4.6 % over the previous year. According to WIPO, cybersquatting disputes relating to new gTLDs accounted for 10.5% of WIPO’s UDRP caseload in 2015, which covered a total of 4,364 domain names, and "among these names, .XYZ, .CLUB and .EMAIL were the most common new gTLDs." Since new gTLDs comprised only about 3% of all domain names registered globally at the end of 2015, the amount of cybersquatting cases in new gTLDs is more than triple that percentage, based on the WIPO report. WIPO also noted:
"The increase in new gTLD registrations in WIPO’s caseload is anticipated to continue, in particular as new gTLDs contested at Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) auction, such as “.SHOP”, are yet to launch.  Meanwhile, calls are being made for a next round of new gTLDs, particularly by brand owners, such as Twitter.  At the same time, ICANN has commenced a process to review Rights Protection Mechanisms such as the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension system) and the UDRP.  As the UDRP initiator and leading administrator, WIPO takes a strong interest in these ICANN processes."
Annexes to the release:


WIPO infographic:





DISCLAIMER

2015-10-02

ICANN Renews .CAT, .PRO, .TRAVEL, RAs with URS Included

UPDATE 6 Feb 2016: ICANN Board DENIES Reconsideration Requests 15-19 (the ICANN Business Constituency & the ICANN Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG)) and 15-20 (The Internet Commerce Association), and ICANN Board adopts the BGC's Recommendation on Reconsideration Requests 15-19 and 15-20 (pdf).[--end of UPDATE--]

On September 28, 2015, the ICANN Board approved renewal of the .TRAVEL, .CAT, and .PRO Registry Agreements with Specification 7, Rights Protection Mechanisms, included, which means the Uniform Rapid Suspension system (“URS”) adopted by ICANN for new gTLDs is now applicable to all three of these "legacy" gTLDs (generic top-level domains). This issue had caused some controversy as it was applying new gTLDs' policy to legacy gTLDs without going through a Policy Development Process (PDP). The ICANN Board's analysis and reasoning in approving the inclusion of the URS for these three legacy gTLDs stated that this does not set a precedent for other legacy gTLDs (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG):
"[This] is not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so. In the case of .TRAVEL, [.CAT and .PRO] inclusion of the URS was developed as part of the proposal in bilateral negotiations between the Registry Operator and ICANN." (excerpt from ICANN Board Resolution, emphasis added)
The full analysis and reasoning of the Board:

"The Board carefully considered the public comments received for Renewal Registry Agreement, along with the summary and analysis of those comments. The Board also considered the terms agreed to by the Registry Operator as part of the bilateral negotiations with ICANN. While the Board acknowledges the concerns expressed by some community members regarding the inclusion of the URS in the Renewal Registry Agreement, the Board notes that the inclusion of the URS in the Renewal Registry Agreement is based on the bilateral negotiations between ICANN and the Registry Operator, where Registry Operator expressed their interest to renew their registry agreement based on the new gTLD Registry Agreement.

"The Board notes that the URS was recommended by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) as a mandatory rights protection mechanism (RPM) for all new gTLDs. The GNSO was asked to provide its view on whether certain proposed rights protection mechanisms (which included the URS) were consistent with the GNSO's proposed policy on the introduction of New gTLDs and were the appropriate and effective option for achieving the GNSO's stated principles and objectives. The STI considered this matter and concluded that "Use of the URS should be a required RPM for all New gTLDs." That is, the GNSO stated that the URS was not inconsistent with any of its existing policy recommendations.

"Although the URS was developed and refined through the process described here, including public review and discussion in the GNSO, it has not been adopted as a consensus policy and ICANN has no ability to make it mandatory for any TLDs other than new gTLD applicants who applied during the 2012 New gTLD round.

"Accordingly, the Board's approval of the Renewal Registry Agreement is not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so. In the case of .TRAVEL [.CAT and .PRO], inclusion of the URS was developed as part of the proposal in bilateral negotiations between the Registry Operator and ICANN.

"Additionally, the Board considered the comments regarding transitioning legacy gTLDs to the new form of the registry agreement. The Board notes that existing registry agreement calls for presumptive renewal of the agreement at its expiration so long as certain requirements are met. The renewal agreement is subject to the negotiation of renewal terms reasonably acceptable to ICANN and the Registry Operator. The renewal terms approved by the Board are the result of the bilateral negotiations called for in the current registry agreement, and transitioning to the new form of the registry agreement would not violate established GNSO policy. As described below, the new form of the registry agreement provides some operational advantages, in addition to benefits to registrants and the Internet community including public interest commitments, requiring the use of registrars under the 2013 RAA, and the ability for ICANN to designate an emergency interim registry operator in the event that emergency thresholds for critical registry services is reached." (emphasis added)

John Poole, Editor of Domain Mondo, was among those who submitted comments opposing inclusion of the URS into the Registry Agreements of these legacy gTLDs--See Most Comments OPPOSE ICANN Extending URS Policy to dotTRAVEL and Comments Overwhelmingly Oppose URS for CAT and PRO gTLDs.

Domain Mondo and its Editor thank the ICANN Board of Directors for their careful review and consideration of all public comments, and specifically thank the Board for stating its approval of the three Renewal Registry Agreements is "not a move to make the URS mandatory for any legacy TLDs, and it would be inappropriate to do so," and further stating: it [URS] "has not been adopted as a consensus policy and ICANN has no ability to make it mandatory for any TLDs other than new gTLD applicants who applied during the 2012 New gTLD round."




DISCLAIMER

2015-09-23

Contact Information for All ICANN-Accredited Domain Name Registrars

"Registrar Primary Contact Updates: ICANN-accredited registrars are required to provide ICANN with accurate and current primary contact information. Registrars on the 2013 RAA must notify ICANN of changes to primary contact details and other information contained in the Registrar Information Specification within 5 days of the change. Registrars on the 2009 RAA must notify ICANN within 30 days of any changes to their primary contact information."--ICANN
Have you registered, or are you thinking about registering, one or more domain names? Then you need to have on file (digital and hard copy) the information on file with ICANN as to the legal name, telephone number and email address of your domain name registrar. It may also be a good idea to know the physical or "operational" address of your registrar.

Where to find the legal name, email address and telephone number that your domain name registrar has on file with ICANN--ICANN | Descriptions and Contact Information for ICANN-Accredited Registrars: Descriptions and Contact Information for ICANN-Accredited Registrars (updated Wednesday, 23-September-2015)

If you discover your domain name registrar is not listed at the ICANN link above, Domain Mondo recommends you do not do business with that "Registrar" and quickly make arrangements to transfer all of your domain names to the ICANN-Accredited Registrar of your choice (e.g., Namecheap, Hover (Tucows), GoDaddy, etc.), there are many "reputable" and "accredited" domain name registrars--preference is a matter of personal needs and choice, with some of the factors being price, reliability, support, ease of use, etc., as well as other factors, some of which are discussed below.

If you want or need the street address (operational) of your registrar, and you cannot find it on the registrar's website, look at the WHOIS contact info for the registrar's domain name, or contact ICANN. You might also want to review your Registrar's agreement with ICANN. Domain Mondo recommends that registrants do business with the ICANN-accredited domain name registrars legally resident in your nation, or which are legally-qualified to do business in your nation. For example, if you live in Australia, Domain Mondo recommends you do business with an ICANN-accredited Domain Name Registrar legally resident in Australia or which is "legally qualified to do business" in Australia (normally requires filing(s) with appropriate governmental authorities in the subject jurisdiction).  [UPDATE: if you cannot find an acceptable, ICANN-accredited registrar where you reside, choose an ICANN-accredited registrar in another jurisdiction where there are strong consumer protection laws.] This is very important for several reasons, here are a few:

a) ICANN: Domain Name Registrants' Rights:: "... You [domain name registrant] shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence ..." If your registrar is not subject to the jurisdiction in which you live, it could be a problem.

b) Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP - the "Rules"): "... Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in its Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider..."

c) Uniform Rapid Suspension System or URS - (applicable only to new gTLDs and those legacy gTLDs that have subsequently adopted* it--but does not include .COM domain names): "... Mutual Jurisdiction: means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider..."

Final note: some ICANN-accredited Registrars are also Resellers for other Domain Name Registrars--for example, Namecheap, an ICANN-accredited Registrar, is also a Reseller for Enom, also an ICANN-accredited Registrar. If you have registered a .COM domain name through Namecheap, your registrar agreement may be with Enom, therefore keep on file the information for both Namecheap and Enom.

Caveat Emptor!

See also on Domain Mondo
*update 30 Dec 2016.



DISCLAIMER

2015-07-09

Comments Overwhelmingly Oppose URS for CAT and PRO gTLDs

Comments closed 7 Jul 2015 23:59 UTC on:

  • Proposed Renewal of .CAT Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement--all comments are here
  • Proposed Renewal of .PRO Unsponsored Registry Agreement--all comments are here.

  • ICANN staff has only one supporter--Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)--the trademark lobbyist (a/k/a stakeholder) organization within ICANN whose President, Trademark Attorney Greg Shatan, filed the lone comment "supporting" ICANN staff's attempt to apply new gTLDs' URS provisions in the renewal of incumbent gTLDs registry agreements. Even the ICANN Business Constituency (BC) filed an "opposition" comment, stating, in part:
    "... our concern is that a unilateral decision by ICANN contractual staff to take the new gTLD registry agreement as the starting point for renewal RAs for legacy gTLDs has the effect of transforming the PDDRP and the URS into de facto Consensus Policies without following the procedures laid out in ICANN’s Bylaws for their creation. The fact that these RPMs are present in all three proposed renewal RAs referenced in this letter reinforces that conclusion..." (emphasis added)
    In Domain Mondo's opinion, the unilateral actions taken by ICANN staff in recent months raise legitimate questions as to whether Intellectual Property stakeholders may be exercising undue influence over ICANN officers and staff--how else to explain: (1) ICANN staff's attempt to bypass policy-making procedures and bylaw requirements (see BC comment above) and apply the URS in three incumbent gTLD RAs--.TRAVEL, .CAT, .PRO--as well as (2) ICANN officers and staff's attempt to throw under the bus dotSUCKS Registry Operator Vox Populi without any finding of breach of the Registry Agreement or other wrongdoing, but just because the IPC sent ICANN one letter? Why didn't ICANN just respond by telling the IPC to file a complaint with the FTC or OCA? If the IPC (or any special interest stakeholder group within ICANN) says "jump," do ICANN officers and staff only ask "how high?" The entire world saw what the US Federal Trade Commission and Canada's OCA thought of the whole ICANN dotSUCKS fiasco.

    To be clear, this has nothing to do with the merits of the various positions taken by the IPC, some of which Domain Mondo happens to agree with, e.g., who is in favor of exorbitant or extortionate domain name registration pricing schemes? Certainly not domain name registrants! No, this is about integrity of process, transparency, accountability.

    Questions:
    1. Is this any way to run a global multi-stakeholder organization that claims it is ready to be "free of US government oversight"?
    2. Doesn't the global multi-stakeholder community deserve better performance from ICANN staff and officers than indicated above?
    The "ICANN Staff Report" is already way "overdue" on .TRAVEL with no explanation on the ICANN websiteWhat are they waiting for? Who are they conferring with? Are ICANN Officers and staff plotting strategy with interested stakeholders? We have no way of knowing. This is ICANN transparency and accountability?

    In most organizations the rot starts at the top"Accountability," is a word ICANN loves to preach, but rarely practicesAnd, unfortunately, the ICANN Board of Directors has allowed ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade to laden ICANN with his personal "cronies" in most top positions--a burden for the next ICANN CEO to deal with, along with ICANN's out-of-control spending, including lavish salaries and benefits. The ICANN Board needs to start holding ICANN staff and officers accountable by asking some direct questions of ICANN Global Domains Division President Akram Atallah. If the Board can't get straight answers and reasonable explanations by those in leadership positions, then perhaps the Board needs to start taking action by telling Akram Atallah (or others) to follow, or precede, "his buddy" Fadi Chehade "out the door." That's called real "accountability."

    For additional background, see on Domain Mondo:

    2015-07-07

    ICANN Staff Report OVERDUE on Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Registry

    UPDATE: Report issued "As a next step, ICANN intends to consider the renewal proposals taking into account the comments."

    screenshot showing ICANN Staff "Report Overdue" - .TRAVEL Registry Renewal
    ICANN Staff "Report Overdue" - .TRAVEL Registry Renewal - source: ICANN website

    ICANN "Staff Report Due 5 Jul 2015 23:59 UTC"
    Report Overdue

    source: Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement - ICANN

    In the meantime, the same URS issue is also present in .CAT and .PRO (links below)--Comments close July 7, 2015 23:59 UTC (time converton both .CAT and .PRO --

    See also on Domain Mondo

    2015-06-23

    ICANN 53 Tuesday: Registries Stakeholder Group, URS and Legacy TLDs

    Tuesday, June 23, 2015, at ICANN 53, Buenos Aires, Argentina: Twitter Feeds
    There's a lot going on Tuesday at ICANN 53. The full agenda of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group is shown further below (after the full day's schedule below). Topics include the URS and Legacy TLDs -- for background see: Domain Mondo: Most Comments OPPOSE ICANN Extending URS Policy to dotTRAVEL. For Remote participation go here.

    For online or remote participation for each session on Tuesday as shown on the daily schedule below, follow the links:

    Tuesday, 23 June 2015
    06:45 to 09:00 ART Fellowship Morning Meeting Retiro C
    07:00 to 08:45 ART Domain Name Association Members Breakfast [C] Catalinas
    07:15 to 08:15 ART At-Large EURALO Monthly Meeting Golden Horn
    08:00 to 17:00 ART gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Libertador C
    08:30 to 09:30 ART Joint Meeting of the ALAC and the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    08:30 to 12:30 ART GAC Meetings (AM) - Tuesday 23 June San Telmo
    09:00 to 10:30 ART LAC Strategy Update and Discussion Golden Horn
    09:00 to 11:15 ART Commercial Stakeholder Group CSG Martin Fierro
    09:00 to 11:30 ART NextGen@ICANN Presentations Aguila
    09:00 to 17:00 ART Registrar Stakeholder Group Retiro B
    09:00 to 18:00 ART ccNSO Members Meeting Day 1 La Pampa
    09:30 to 10:45 ART IETF Buenos Aires 2015 Catalinas
    09:30 to 12:30 ART Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) Retiro A
    09:30 to 13:00 ART Non Commercial Users Constituency NCUC Retiro C
    09:45 to 10:45 ART Joint Meeting of the ccNSO and the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    11:00 to 12:30 ART Joint Meeting of the CSG and the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    11:00 to 12:30 ART LAC Talks: Infrastructure, Access, Interconnection and IXPs Catalinas
    11:00 to 13:00 ART ALAC Work - Part I Golden Horn
    11:30 to 14:00 ART NextGen@ICANN Lunch Session [C] Leisure Suit Larry
    13:00 to 14:00 ART At-Large Ad-Hoc New Meeting Strategy Working Party Golden Horn
    13:15 to 16:30 ART Business Constituency (BC) Martin Fierro
    13:30 to 16:30 ART ISP and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP) Aguila
    14:00 to 16:00 ART ALAC Work - Part II Golden Horn
    14:00 to 16:30 ART Non Commercial Stakeholder Group NCSG Retiro C
    14:00 to 17:00 ART Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) Retiro A
    14:00 to 18:00 ART GAC Meetings (PM) - Tuesday 23 June San Telmo
    14:15 to 15:15 ART Joint Meeting of the Registries with the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    15:30 to 16:30 ART Joint Meeting of the Registrars and the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    16:15 to 20:00 ART At-Large Ad-hoc WG on IANA Transition & ICANN Accountability Golden Horn
    16:45 to 17:45 ART Joint Meeting of the NCSG with the ICANN Board Libertador AB
    17:30 to 19:00 ART Fellowship Afternoon Session Libertador C

    gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group AGENDA
    09:00 – 09:30 Open Meeting
    Introductions
    Review and approve agenda
    Briefing and discussion from 6/21/15 Contracted Party House Executive Committee session with ICANN staff

    09:30 – 10:45 Engagement with ICANN Staff
    2 Character Country Names at the Second Level
    GDD Scorecard – open issues/action (Yasmin Omer)
    ICANN Registry Fees going forward (Xavier Calvez and Chuck Gomes)
    Registry Agreement Amendment (Jon Nevett)
    GDD Industry Summit – results of survey and potential topics for agenda (Krista Papac)
    Studies/metrics to inform AOC Review of New gTLD Program (Karen Lentz)
    AOB?

    10:45 Break
    11:00 – 12:45 RySG Business (working luncheon)
    Review topics for discussion with ICANN Board
    GNSO Council Issues and Motions (Jonathan Robinson)
    GAC request for feedback, proposed implementation procedures (Donna Austin, Susan Payne, Kristina Rosette)
    Pending RySG comments (Paul Diaz)
    URS and Legacy TLDs
    RySG Evolution 3 Working Group update on Charter Amendments (Paul Diaz)
    Role of RySG Executive Committee going forward (Keith Drazek)
    Universal Acceptance Steering Group (USAG) (Don Hollander, Edmon Chung)
    GAC Public Safety Working Group (PSWG) (Bobby Flaim) (15 minutes)
    Interest Groups Updates
    NTAG (Samantha Demetriou)
    GeoTLD (Dirk Krischenowski/Peter Vergote)
    Community
    Brand Registry Group (Philip Sheppard)

    13:00 – 14:00 Joint RySG/RrSG meeting (Libertador C)
    GNSO Review Report (with Westlake Consulting) (20 minutes)
    GNSO Council Issues and Motions
    Planning for GNSO Council Chair nominations
    Pending Public Comments for review and discussion as still pending/needed:
    RAA WHOIS Accuracy Program Specification Review (due 7/3/15)
    Privacy and Proxy Working Group Draft Report (due 7/7/15)
    URS in Legacy TLDs
    Review of Ry and Rr topics for discussion with ICANN Board
    AOB?

    14:00 Adjourn for meeting with ICANN Board
    14:15 – 15:15 RySG Session with ICANN Board (Libertador AB)
    Operational Issues (Data Breach, TMCH, etc.)
    Budgeting (Allocation of resources, cost-benefit analysis, forecasting, etc.)
    IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability (placeholder in case there are key issues to discuss)

    15:30 – 16:45 RySG and Other Business (continued from morning session)
    ICANN Accountability and IANA Stewardship Transition
    IANA Stewardship Transition CWG (Donna Austin, Chuck Gomes)
    i. Kim Davies, IANA SLAs and Delegation Process (15:30)
    ICANN Accountability CCWG (Keith Drazek, Becky Burr)
    16:45 Wrap up and Adjourn


    2014-01-19

    Facebook Passed on gTLD Dot Facebook, but Defends Its Dot Com

    Ask Mark Zuckerberg what he thinks of the new gTLDs? LOL! Not much--you won't find a dot facebook in the list of new gTLDs.

    So while Mark Zuckerberg is too smart to have fallen for the new gTLDs, don't think he won't defend the Facebook dot com --

    Facebook Wins First Uniform Rapid Suspension System Case: "Facebook has successfully filed and won a domain name dispute case to become the first brand to file it under a new domain suspension system. The National Arbitration Forum, a dispute resolution service provider, said that Facebook, the world’s most popular social networking site, was the first brand owner to file a dispute using the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS). The URS is a new way to resolve domain disputes and created to suspend quickly domain names that infringe on trademarks..."




    Domain Mondo archive