Tx Robin. I assume you will let us know what you find out... Best, Ginger Robin Gross wrote: > Interesting... yesterday's version of the FT article had more > discussion about noncommercial users being ignored than today's > version of the article has. My quote on the issue was edited out of > the article overnight. > > Yesterday's version of FT article on ICANN: > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ce57c854-7170-11de-a821-00144feabdc0.html > > Here was my quote in yesterday's article that was removed from today's > version: > > Robin Gross, a cyberspace rights lawyer, and executive director of IP > Justice, an international civil liberties organisation, said: “Icann > is full of people who work for corporations and think that Icann > should be run like one. When I try to remind people that it is a > not-for-profit organisation, they look at me like I am mad. Icann is > dominated by commercial stakeholder groups.” > > > I'm going to email the reporter and ask her what happened. > > Robin > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:39 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> ICANN in today's Financial Times: >> * >> http://tinyurl.com/l8uvgv >> >> * >> *Dot organisation* >> By Maija Palmer >> >> Published: July 16 2009 03:00 | Last updated: July 16 2009 03:00 >> >> >> A couple of weeks ago, Sarah Deutsch got a typical call. The >> associate general counsel at Verizon spoke to a lawyer friend who >> informed her that someone was selling the internet address >> Verizonwirelessstorm.com on eBay for $1m. For Ms Deutsch and her team >> of five trademark lawyers, it triggered another weary process of >> trying to track down the seller and reclaim the web name. >> >> "We get reports of thousands of violations each day and it is >> difficult to prioritise which ones we go after," she says. >> >> Verizon, the US telecommunications operator, owns a portfolio of >> 10,000 domain names, everything from the obvious verizon.com to >> misspellings such as verison.com and names such as verizonsucks.com, >> which they would prefer to keep out the hands of mischief-makers or >> competitors. This is typical for large companies. Microsoft, for >> example, owns more than 24,000 domain names. >> >> Ms Deutsch's job is about to get much harder. Next spring the >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - the agency that >> runs the web's day-to-day operations - plans to allow a dramatic >> expansion of the 268 "top-level" domains, or everything after the >> dot. Currently these range from the generic - ".com" or ".org" - to >> the country-specific, such as ".uk". But the US-based body now plans >> to open the floodgates and let anyone register a new top-level domain >> - as long as they can pay the $186,000 (£113,000, €132,000) >> registration fee. Icann estimates that there will be about 500 new >> ones, ranging from the person or company-specific (".verizon") to the >> generic (".books"). >> >> This opening up of the internet represents one of the biggest shifts >> yet seen in the underlying structure of the online medium. Its >> implications are complex and controversial - and extend well beyond >> the concerns of the commercial enterprises that see the Web as little >> more than a virtual global shopping mall. >> >> A representative of the Pope, for instance, has written to Icann with >> concerns over how it would ensure that sensitive religious domains - >> ".catholic", ".muslim" or even ".god" - would not fall into the wrong >> hands. >> >> Public interest groups, meanwhile, fear that the changes mark part of >> a more general rewriting of the rules of the internet that could see >> free speech lose out to commercial interests. >> >> Such concerns, in turn, have prompted renewed questions about the >> structure and governance of the internet - an issue that has never >> been far below the surface in recent years. Icann, a non-profit >> corporation that is still ultimately at the behest of the US >> Department of Commerce, has faced challenges before to the way it is >> organised, most notably from a European attempt to put it under the >> control of the United Nations. >> >> The coming expansion of the internet's naming system is a central >> part of Icann's attempt to prove that it truly operates in the >> interests of a fast-growing global audience. The Roman alphabet, for >> instance, still dominates the internet naming system, yet the world's >> biggest internet audience is now in China. Arab nations have also >> bristled under long delays in Icann's efforts to come up with a >> system that suits their needs. >> >> If Icann fails to appease these interest groups, the consequences >> could be severe. Getting it wrong could lead to schisms over the >> underlying naming system of the internet - in effect, leading to a >> fragmentation that turns the single global online medium into a >> series of separate systems. >> >> With an end to the years of work it has taken to create a new naming >> system now in sight, it is large corporations that have been making >> the loudest noise. >> >> The costs and risks for any big company that does business over the >> internet are considerable. Although some domain names can be >> registered for a few dollars, if they are already owned by someone, >> it can cost around $2,000 to buy them back. If ownership is disputed >> in court, the costs are considerably higher. >> >> Yet big advertisers like Verizon cannot afford to ignore the >> opportunists - so-called cybersquatters - who register variations of >> its trademark name online. As well as confusing people, fake sites >> can damage a company's brand in the eyes of their customers. Verizon >> estimates that at least 9m customers could have been lured away onto >> fake websites, had it not fought to take control. >> >> As a result, big brand owners are trying to ensure that Icann has >> procedures that will protect their rights when the onslaught begins - >> ways to get trademark-infringing sites taken down quickly, for example. >> >> However, these are proving controversial with other parts of the >> internet community, such as non-commercial groups, who are concerned >> that these would choke free speech online. >> >> "In Iran the protesters were able to communicate with the outside >> world because of proxy servers that allowed them to remain anonymous. >> But there are working groups within Icann working to prevent >> anonymous proxy servers because they might interfere with >> trademarks," says Robin Gross of IP Justice, an international civil >> liberties organisation. >> >> While tensions are high, few dispute that opening up the naming >> system is a necessary step to creating a more lasting foundation for >> the internet, and one that will benefit hundreds of millions of users. >> >> Fans of the expansion of domains say that it could make navigation of >> the internet easier. Looking for plumber.london might, arguably, give >> a clearer indication of what and where a business is, than many >> variations of A1plumbers.com. >> >> "We spend a lot of time and money trying to drive people to websites. >> Anything that makes it easier to find things on the web is a good >> thing," said Tom Eslinger of Saatchi & Saatchi, the advertising agency. >> >> Others add that the high costs of the new naming system will diminish >> over time. Nick Wood of Com Laude, a domain name management company >> which works for multinational clients such as Nestlé and AstraZeneca, >> says that while fees may be initially high, they will "inevitably" fall. >> >> "When dotcom domains first started to be sold in 1994 they cost $200. >> Now they can be registered for $6. That will happen for top level >> domains. When the registration falls to $18,000 or $9,000, many >> companies will want to apply," he says, adding that he is already >> aware of 54 companies in the UK and northern Europe alone that are >> interested in applying for their own domain name. >> >> Yet the last-minute efforts by large corporations to ensure the new >> naming system protects their interests have brought a wider backlash, >> exposing the deeper tensions inside Icann. >> >> A recent meeting of Icann in Sydney descended into full-blown >> conflict over the issue. >> >> "It was a very hostile environment - even for an Icann meeting, which >> is generally a hostile environment for [intellectual property] owners >> and representatives. We had people shouting at us, saying we were >> tyrants and blog postings comparing us to Ahmadi-Nejad," said >> Kristina Rosette of lawyers Covington & Burling, who were involved in >> drafting recommendations to Icann on trademark protection when the >> new domain names are released. >> >> Much now rests on the shoulders of Rod Beckstrom, Icann's new chief >> executive. A former cyber-security tsar at the US Department for >> Homeland Security, Mr Beckstrom has been striving for a neutral >> stance in his first days in office - though his comments have done >> little to calm the worries of corporations. >> >> "You can look at domainers in many ways. Some see them as >> cybersquatters, some look at them as entrepreneurs. I think there is >> a rich and healthy debate to be had," he says, adding, "There is no >> solution where everyone will get what they want." >> >> Trademark owners worry that such comments show Mr Beckstrom is not >> listening to their concerns. >> >> "There is definitely potential for a showdown between Icann and >> trademark owners," says Ms Rosette, who describes Mr Beckstrom's >> statements as "disconcerting". If Icann does not demonstrate that it >> genuinely intends to prevent abuse of trademarks, the two sides could >> end up in court, she warns. "It's no secret that there are trademark >> owners that would love to sue Icann for infringement." >> >> Public interest groups, on the other side, also warn that a damaging >> division may lie ahead. "If non-commercial users feel like our voices >> are not being heard at the meetings, we can't get people to >> participate in Icann," Ms Gross said. >> >> Ultimately, the danger for Icann - and for internet users around the >> world - is that these tensions could destroy the delicate consensus >> on which the global internet directory is founded. If Icann loses the >> confidence of countries that sign up to its system, that could even >> lead to rival naming systems emerging, breaking the online world into >> a series of fragmented networks. >> >> /Additional reporting by Abadesi Osunsade and Farah Halime/ >> >> *Tug-of-war over cyber gatekeeper* >> >> There have been many calls to make Icann less tied to oversight by >> the US government. >> >> Founded in 1998, Icann is a not-for-profit organisation which is >> contracted by the US Department of Commerce to manage the world's >> internet domain names. Its founding documents contained the idea that >> over time it would become more globally influenced. >> >> The United Nations, the International Telecoms Union and countries >> such as China and Brazil have all questioned the influence of the US >> over Icann and thus the internet. Viviane Reding, the European >> Union's information society commissioner, has urged the US to >> transfer accountability of Icann to an international body. >> >> This September, a key contract between Icann and the US government >> expires and Icann plans to take a small step towards independence. >> But many are wary of Icann striking out on its own. >> >> People are sceptical of the idea that states such as Libya, North >> Korea and China should share oversight of Icann, as they want, says >> Nick Wood of Com Laude, a domain name manager. "The US government is >> the least horrible option." There is also worry that Icann could be >> overtaken by commercial interests, such as the registrars that sell >> internet names. >> >> US congressmen questioned Icann last month over whether it was doing >> enough to fight cybercrime, whether staff were overpaid, and whether >> a not-for-profit entity should be running a surplus of $7m (£4m, >> €5m), as it did last year. >> >> Copyright <http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright> The >> Financial Times Limited 2009 >> >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > >