Hi,

You may be right.
Time will tell.

avri

On 22-May-15 16:10, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
> Avri,
> I agree with most of what you say below. But I don't think it is clear
> that we (ICANN Community) will accept the URS in older (legacy) TLDs
> like .COM, .ORG and .NET.
>
> The URS - a quick and dirty bypass of the UDRP and due process - was a
> concession forced through as part of the New gTLD program. It was part
> of the concern of the intellectual property owners then that when we
> would unveil massive numbers of new gTLDs and cybersquatters would run
> rampant. (They haven't.) It was part of the process ICANN forced us
> (NCSG) into and we negotiated it and made it better. It is barely used
> today.
>
> But URS was never intended for the older and established gTLDs and
> doesn't belong there -- as others have noted!
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
> On 5/22/2015 2:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is problematic.
>>
>> Not only was the URS forced on new gTLD without a proper PDP, now we are
>> extending it to all PDPs.
>>
>> Though we mostly all seem to have meekly accepted the imposition of URS
>> on new gTLDs without proper process.  So maybe they think, having
>> overlooked it once, we will allow it again.
>>
>> But this does bring up a good question about the different conditions
>> each every new wave of gTLDs is subjeced to.  A world still meant to
>> give advantage to incumbents.  I think this is a bigger issue we have to
>> deal with.
>>
>> I am sure that if/when we do go through a PDP on this, we will, as we
>> did with Thick Whois, eventually accept this.  But we should at least go
>> through the motions.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 21-May-15 22:51, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> The news that ICANN staff is attempting to create and impose
>>> "consensus policy" on existing TLDs is
>> truly shocking, even for ICANN.  I hope we can submit comments on this
>> issue and argue that policies should go through proper bottom-up policy
>> development processes before becoming global policy at ICANN.  This
>> top-down usurpation by staff of the community's role in developing
>> consensus policy cannot go unaddressed if we are serious about ICANN's
>> brand of "multi-stakeholderism" meaning bottom-up policy development.  -
>> Robin
>>>> http://www.internetcommerce.org/no-urs-at-dot-travel/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Act Now -- Just Say “No!” to URS at .Travel – Or It Will Travel to
>>>> .Com*
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> On May 12^th  ICANN posted
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/travel-renewal-2015-05-12-en> the
>> “Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement” for a
>> period of public comment ending June 21^st .
>>>> *You’d expect ICANN staff to be on their best behavior right now,
>> during ongoing community efforts to fashion enhanced and binding
>> accountability measures. But instead this proposed Registry Agreement
>> (RA) contains a provision through which staff is trying to preempt
>> community discussion and decide a major policy issue through a contract
>> with a private party. And that very big issue is whether Uniform Rapid
>> Suspension (URS) should be a consensus policy applicable to all gTLDs,
>> including incumbents like .Com and .Net.*
>>>> The starting point for the proposed new .Travel RA was not the prior
>> .Travel RA but the standard registry agreement for new gTLDs. As
>> explained in ICANN’s announcement:
>>>> 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.
>>>> *With a view to increase the consistency of registry agreements
>> across all gTLDs, ICANN has proposed that the renewal agreement be based
>> on the **approved new gTLD Registry Agreement as updated on 9 January
>> 2014*
>> <http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.htm>*.
>>
>> *In order to account for the specific nature of the .TRAVEL TLD, a
>> Sponsored TLD <http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/>,
>> relevant provisions in the 5 May 2005 Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement
>> <https://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/travel> have been carried over to
>> this renewal agreement.
>>>> *As a result, the proposed renewal agreement for .TRAVEL is similar
>> to the terms of a Registry Agreement for a new gTLD* that elected for
>> community TLD status and that is not operated by an intergovernmental
>> organization of a government entity… (Emphasis added)
>>>> *There is one very big problem with that staff-determined
>> “consistency” approach. 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, the proposed draft RA
>> <https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/travel/travel-proposed-renewal-redline-12may15-en.pdf>
>>
>> for .Travel includes, at p. 78, an amended version of Specification 7
>> (Minimum Requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms) with 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 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. There was actually an extended debate in which
>> IP interests insisted that they were mere implementation of the
>> program’s general commitment to protecting IP rights and therefore did
>> not require an extended policy development process (PDP) to be made
>> applicable to new gTLDs. That dog won’t hunt for incumbent gTLDs like
>> .Com.
>>>> As for considering whether the new gTLD RPMs should someday become
>> consensus policy, ICANN recently closed a comment period
>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en> on a
>> “Draft Report: Rights Protection Mechanism Review” and ICA submitted an
>> extensive comment letter
>> <http://www.internetcommerce.org/no-rdnh-via-urs/> on it. That Draft RPM
>> Report is supposed to be preliminary to a full staff Issues Report on
>> new gTLD RPMs to be delivered to the GNSO Council in late September.
>> Receipt of that Issues Report is expected to inform a discussion of how
>> well all the new RPMs are performing, whether they need to be altered,
>> and – most importantly – whether they should become consensus policies
>> for all gTLDs.
>>>> *But now ICANN contracting staff, before the policy staff have even
>> delivered their RPM Issues Report, are attempting to preempt that entire
>> consensus policy discussion by imposing the URS on an incumbent gTLD.*
>>>> *This is a prime and disturbing example of top-down, staff-driven
>> policymaking. And it is clear justification for the overdue and badly
>> needed accountability mechanisms that ICANN stakeholders are now
>> fashioning.*
>>>> We understand that trademark interests would probably support making
>> the URS a consensus policy. We know that many new gTLD registry
>> operators are on the record saying that all the new RA provisions they
>> are subject to, including URS, should be the rules of the road for
>> incumbent registries as well.
>>>> *As for ICA, we are a long way from establishing our position on that
>> question – but we insist that it occur only after full community debate
>> and consideration of all the potential reverberations of such a
>> decision. That’s what a PDP is for.*
>>>> 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 21^st  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
>> **[log in to unmask]*
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>* by June 21^st . 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 *[log in to unmask]*
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com