Thx Alain for your kind comments, The points were meant to convince, but maybe not so harshly as they turned out to sound. I was hoping that jest and good humor would outlast hard feelings. And I'm glad you forced yourself to see past the (french-canadian) passion we both sometimes display, and came back with a courteous yet thoughtful rejoinder. Cheers! Nicolas On 12/12/2011 2:59 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Nicolas, > > /"After all, since IP interests have begun colonizing NCSG in the > guise of non-profit 'operational' concerns (please, Alain, don't tell > me you can't see that)"/ > > Thank you for your excellent point by point analysis. Obviously, you > now know I read everything you post since you slipped my first name in > one of your numerous points (quoted above). > > Yes, Nicolas, I understand NPOC's genesis, membership and current > state of development quite well. I see that NPOC is already a diverse > group of NFPs - from the very large OECD-based global brand name NFP > to the obscure and tiny NGO in a developing country. These are two > worlds far apart and the world will be a better place when all have a > chance to experience the two - not many of us have had that chance! be > patient! > > I think in the end that that size diversity - and all the other > diversities it implies - will be an asset for NPOC, NCSG and ICANN. > > I would like to see a NFP world where the large and rich NGOs will > work hand in hand with the tiny and poor NGOs - as some do already by > the way. > > Meanwhile, I cannot stop nor wish to stop any member to speak of their > fears or hopes, to devise their communications strategy accordingly > and whatever else they wish - in the process "le droit ŕ l'erreur et ŕ > l'apprentissage appartient ŕ tout le monde!" - "the right to make > mistakes and to learn from them belongs to all!" > > But I can also attempt to share my views that NPOC, when it speaks for > NPOC members, speak for all members. I'm sure you can tell when that > happens. > > We, NPOC, are a new group, we are learning how best to work together, > outside and inside ICANN, and we are talking to and learning from each > other. We also benefit for being slapped in the face from time to time > and our team spirit is growing. That will build cultural and > socio-economic bridges between our members in-between and at both ends > of the NGO/NFP spectrum. Never has the "esprit de corps" been so high > at NPOC... growing pains notwithstanding you understand! > > We also learn from the constructive criticism from our more > experienced NCSG and ICANN colleagues such as you, so keep it coming, > humor (preferred) or not, it is useful and productive. > > Salutations amicales, Alain > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > There is lots of problems with this testimony and I wonder how > informed NCSG members could have lent their support to this > terrified plea. It's ok to be affraid, it just sucks when the > people that are unreasonably terrified lobby to impose their fears > on other. > > I assume that the 3 days notice is responsible for the fact that > no NPOC members dissociated themselves from this testimony "on > behalf of the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency > known as NPOC". > > For starters, the assertion that the " collective missions [of > NPOC members] will be compromised due to the enormous cost and > financial burdens [sic] of the new Generic Top-Level Domain Name > Program (gTLD) [??]" has nothing going for it, save perhaps its > rhetorical qualities. Such gross exaggerations will get you your > project loan rejected, where I come from. > > The conflation of the "gTLD program" with the lack of appropriate > preemptive registration rights *built in* the new gTLD program is > a conflation only matched in its self-servingness by the refusal > to note that new gTLD are attributed on the merit, after a > thorough business case is made by the applicant. > > Lets look at this testimony bit by bit. > >> The new gTLD program compromises use of the internet by >> increasing the risk of fraud, cybersquatting, and trademark >> infringement and by significantly escalating the cost to protect >> against such unlawful activities. The following are areas of >> particular concern: >> >> ·domain name registration >> >> ·the introduction of new top level and second level domain names >> into the DNS (Domain Name System) >> >> ·fraud and abuse, and >> >> ·using Internet platform to distribute and collect >> mission-related information for our members and the communities >> we serve. >> > > > How? Did anyone at the hearing understand anything you were trying > to say? Where are causes and where are effects? Those are grand > statements that should be explicated. But we love our talking > points, don't we. > >> It is the goal of our organizations to educate all those >> responsible for implementation of the new gTLD program about >> unintended consequences.There is no doubt it will have a >> crippling effect upon my organization and any nonprofit >> organization here and around the globe in its current form. >> > > Again, please explain. > >> I'd like to begin with our budgetary concerns. >> >> Currently, the ICANN website quotes costs for one new gTLD to be >> approximately $185,000 to file an application, with an annual >> cost thereafter of at least $25,000 for a required ten-year term. >> This does not include the legal fees required to prepare the >> application and certain amounts required to be in escrow. >> Moreover, there are many additional potential costs. For example, >> if an application is filed and then placed into an extended >> evaluation by ICANN, the applicant may have to pay an additional >> $50,000. An applicant may be required to defend its application >> against objections, which range from $1,000 to $5,000 in filing >> fees per party per proceeding, and an additional $3,000 to >> $20,000 in costs per proceeding, which must be paid up front. >> Accordingly, the ultimate cost in proceeding through the entire >> application process alone could reach several hundred thousands >> of dollars. > > Wait, are you actually saying that it is hard to apply for and get > a gTLD? Isn't your point that just anybody can get one that "looks > alike" your acronym and run a fake fundraiser for a few weeks? > >> If the Y or another NPOC member chooses not to participate in the >> new gTLD program, it runs the risk that another entity will apply >> for use of its name or one that is confusingly similar. In the >> event another entity applies for a top-level domain that contains >> the organization's name, the costs for filing an objection are >> expected to be approximately $30,000- $50,000. >> > > By "choosing not to particpate in the new gTLD program", you mean > not apply for your own gTLD, right? Indeed, objecting to a bunch > of kids trying to run their .YMKA could be very costly. If i was > on your board, I would recommend a different course of action. > >> While processes such as these may be useful in the commercial >> space, not-for-profits simply do not have the resources to >> participate, and will certainly not be able to be compete, >> against for-profit organizations with large budgets and reserves >> for intellectual property protection. > > In the "commercial space", people don't take advices from IP > lawers with an agenda. Do you mean that under (any domestic, pick > one) current law, it could be profitable to form large "for-profit > organizations with large budgets and reserves for intellectual > property protection" with the business model of applying for and > getting NPO's look-alike gTLDs acronyms for the purpose of running > fake fundraising? Because me and a few buddies in NCUC were > looking for a new gig since bitcoin went down. > >> Non-profit organizations such as YMCA, Red Cross, Goodwill, March >> of Dimes, and countless others around the world not only prefer >> to, but must, use our monies to provide critical services to our >> communities. We simply cannot afford thousands of dollars to >> become a domain name registry solely to ensure brand protection. > > I just love it when people use the word "monies". In french its > even sexier. But you're right, "nos argents" are generally better > spent elsewhere than following advices of scared IP lawyers with > an agenda. (Just so I make myself very clear, I have nothing > against lawyers, what with my dad being a Judge and my girlfriend > a Crown prosecutor-- one of the best. I also respect people with > different risk profile than mine, its just that in the present > case, no amount of risk-averseness could justify such unreasonable > fears, and so one is left with the 'hostile agenda' option.) > >> ICANN's new gTLD program does not allow non-profit organizations >> to protect their brands and avoid the public confusion that >> results from their unauthorized use. > > Here we are. I know i've made fun of you. In the past, right now, > amongst my friends in private, and in publicly archived > policy-making forum. I'm sorry. I see now the need for me to tone > down and compromise, if you will compromise with me. I have made > no secret that I am *against* colonizing languages and addressing > schemes with trademark and IP law. But I am ready to give you this > one, for the sake of us reaching a consensus. I promise to not > oppose reserve lists any more if you will stop trying to expand > trademark and IP law in areas in which they are legitimately > un-welcome (criticisms, dissent, satire, art mash-ups, and a few > others). After all, since IP interests have begun colonizing NCSG > in the guise of non-profit 'operational' concerns (please, Alain, > don't tell me you can't see that), let's just make the best of it > and decide right now that we will use our opposition to craft the > most balanced approach possible. After all, both sides are > ultimately in danger of winning too decisively, which inevitably > precipitate the return of the pendulum, and creates the most > instability. Since i'm on a roll here though, we can work out the > details later ;) > >> Recently one of our organizations, a large and historic >> organization, became aware that an unauthorized entity was using >> its name to fundraise, online and in the community. This led to >> confusion by potential funders about which organization was >> seeking donations. This is a common example of how our >> organizations are impacted by brand infringement. > > As you make us painfully aware, there is no stopping all > wrongdoing. The analogy is, sadly though, not on point. It does > not take aplying for and passing the vetting process and investing > lots of monies to run a phishing scam. Or was ICANN's new gTLD > program at fault here? > >> Under the new gTLD program, such instances could multiply because >> infringers may be able to purchase the historic non-profit's name >> as a domain name. If the non-profit does not have the funds to >> oppose that action, immense public confusion and >> misrepresentation can result. > > Clearly, you haven't read the applicants guidebook. > >> YMCA of the USA currently employs 1.5 full-time employees at a >> cost of $225,000 annually, in addition to external legal >> expertise at a cost of over $100,000 this year alone, in an >> effort to monitor and protect the use of its brand.Many other >> not-for-profits cannot afford this expense to protect their name >> and goodwill. The increase of new gTLDs will further exacerbate >> this problem. > Have you heard of SEO. It will do wonder for a fraction of this cost. > >> The primary enforcement mechanism of the new gTLD Program is the >> Trademark Clearinghouse, where trademark owners can list their >> existing trademarks to take advantage of sunrise registration >> periods and warn potential registrants of their rights. The gTLD >> program is due to be rolled out in less than 40 days. At this >> point, the cost of listing marks in the Clearinghouse has not >> been set, creating more uncertainty about the actual costs for >> participating in the new gTLD Program. > > I see you've heard of this. There is a (justifiable) premium to be > paid by extremely risk-averse people, unfortunately. > >> As I have already mentioned, non-profit organizations are not in >> a financial position to register their marks in hundreds of >> additional gTLDs, particularly at premium prices. Trademark >> owners will not be allowed to preemptively register marks that >> are nearly identical to their marks; such "look-alikes" are often >> used by fraudsters and cyber squatters to deceive and confuse >> Internet users who are trying to locate websites of >> not-for-profit organizations. >> >> If not-for-profit organizations cannot afford to register the >> domain names in the first place, they can hardly be expected to >> have the funds budgeted and available to file these complaints. >> Nor should they, as these funds are better served fulfilling >> their humanitarian missions. > > I'd hate to repeat myself, but if there is monies to be made in > this business model, i'd appreciate if you could PM me. > >> *_Public Confusion and Cybersquatting Concerns _**__* >> >> Not-for profits and NGOs rely heavily on the internet to provide >> their respective missions. The public trusts the high-quality >> services they have come to associate with these organizations in >> a reliable manner.Our ability to ensure that the public knows and >> trusts the public face of the internet for all of our >> organizations is paramount. > Next thing you will know on the IP-powered Internet you are > promoting is that the bulk of NPOs will end up on the wrong end of > the IP stick, the highjacking and SLAPP end of the stick. > >> Bad actors in the domain name space such as cybersquatters, >> fraudsters, and others who register and use domain names in bad >> faith to profit off of the goodwill of well-known entities have >> existed for many years in the existing domain name space. > Yet "Not-for profits and NGOs rely heavily on the internet to > provide their respective missions. The public trusts the > high-quality services they have come to associate with these > organizations in a reliable manner." > > (...) > > This is getting redundant, in a non-technical sense, so let me > just skip 15 or 20 lines. > >> *_Recommendations_* >> >> Our fears are not alone.There has been a ground-swell of internet >> stakeholders, including the largest for-profit companies that >> have repeatedly expressed concerns about the program beginning in >> January 2012 when so many vital issues remain unresolved. > Fears they are indeed. But the rest of the statement should be > puzzling to smaller NPOC members or smaller prospective NPOC members. > >> Therefore, we join this ground-swell in our concerns about the >> new gTLD program. We ask that there continue to be input from >> stakeholders, and careful consideration of the impact of this >> program on the internet, and particularly on not-for-profits. >> Among the numerous requests the NPOC has made to ICANN, we bring >> the following to your attention: >> >> ·That verified not-for-profit organizations be permitted to >> exempt their trademarks from any other applicant in the new gTLD >> program at no cost, or if that is not possible, then at a >> drastically reduced fee >> > As i've said, since we are adversaries in principles (and I hope > to be less time-strap soon so I can contribute to our discussion > on fundamental principles), we should work together to create the > only legitimate, balanced, framework for moving forward. > >> ·That the mechanisms for trademark protection be significantly >> strengthened, with the ability to proactively protect trademark >> owners before any application is accepted >> > > Let's discuss details. I will change my tone. > >> ·That the costs to participate in the new gTLD program for >> verified not-for-profit organizations be eliminated >> > I don't understand what you mean by 'participate in the new gTLD > program'. But in any case, free is never really free, right? Time, > yours and mine, is valuable. I'm doing this pro-bono. I hope you > won't take offense if I ask if you are too? > > Nicolas > > On 12/8/2011 3:12 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote: >> >> Hi all - as you know the next GNSO Council meeting will be next >> week. The Chair has asked for an update on the Senate hearings on >> gTLDs that are currently taking place <link?> I've just noticed >> that some NCSG members were invited by the Committee to make >> submissions http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00064.html >> and will do so tomorrow: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/12/06/ymca-testimony-senate-hearing >> >> As GNSO councillors representing this SG, we would appreciate >> knowing (before the GNSO meeting) if any others are also making >> submissions and, if so, what those submissions are. If there are >> any particular issues you want to be raised or for any of us >> Councillors to be aware of, please let us know. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Joy Liddicoat >> >> Project Coordinator >> >> Internet Rights are Human Rights >> >> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org> >> >> Tel: +64 21 263 2753 <tel:%2B64%2021%20263%202753> >> >> Skype id: joy.liddicoat >> >> Yahoo id: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, > www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > <http://www.chasquinet.org> > interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger >