On October 3, 2017 the ICA filed a comment letter with ICANN regarding the proposed revisions to the renewal Registry Agreement (RA) for the .Museum gTLD.
As with other legacy gTLDs that have renewed over the past two years, the new RA proposes to adopt Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS). ICA once again protests this de facto creation of Consensus Policy through closed door bilateral negotiations rather than through the GNSO’s open and inclusive Policy Development Process (PDP).
The RA would also convert .Museum from a Sponsored to a Community top level domain, but defines its “community” in a manner that is inconsistent with relevant ICANN policy and that is so loose that it essentially converts .Museum into an open gTLD where anyone may register. This is exactly the type of improper incentive that can induce a registry operator to “voluntarily” adopt the URS.
The letter’s Executive Summary states:
• ICA is concerned that Global Domain Division (GDD) has proposed a renewal agreement that proposes community status which is inconsistent with the present definition of “community” applied to other gTLDs; has engaged in a process that fails to observe the very safeguards it has stated must be followed for the expansion of classes of eligible registrants for a community gTLD; and continues to undermine the GNSO’s authority to recommend the substance of Consensus Policy by imposing adoption of URS through the RA renewal process.
• The 2016 launch of the PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs, which is tasked with recommending whether new gTLD RPMs should become Consensus Policy for legacy gTLDs under its GNSO Council-approved Charter, makes it particularly inappropriate for GDD staff to continue seeking that de facto policy result in non-transparent, bilateral RA negotiations that contravene the policymaking process set forth in the Bylaws.
• GDD staff should demonstrate their clear commitment to ICANN’s bottom-up policymaking process by ceasing and desisting from seeking top-down imposition of new gTLD RPMs in legacy gTLD RA negotiations until the RPM Review WG has completed its work reviewing those RPMs and its final recommendations – including whether those RPMs should become Consensus Policy — have been acted upon by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.
• In the absence of such GDD self-restraint, the ICANN Board should declare an immediate moratorium on the imposition of new gTLD RPMs on legacy gTLDs through RA renewal negotiations until the above referenced PDP has been concluded, the GNSO Council has acted upon its recommendations, and any implementation and transition issues have been addressed.
• The vastly expanded community of eligible registrants for the .Museum gTLD is inconsistent with the “community” definition adopted for the new gTLD program. Promulgating an inconsistent concept of gTLD community could create conflicts with the ongoing work of the Subsequent Procedures WG.
• The opaque process utilized for the expansion of eligible .Museum registrants is at odds with the transparent process being developed within ICANN, that GDD has stated must be utilized by other community gTLDs seeking to add new classes of eligible registrants. The renewal proposal shows no evidence that members of the existing .Museum sponsored community have been consulted on the proposed class expansion.
The full letter can be viewed at https://www.internetcommerce.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ICA-Museum_RA_revision-comment-Final-100317.pdf
On September 11, 2017 the ICA sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer requesting that the ongoing renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) address protectionist restrictions so that U.S. entities and organizations wishing to register a .CA domain face no greater requirements than their Canadian counterparts face in registering a .US domain.
As noted in the letter:
To-date, Canada has substantially hindered and prevented Americans from obtaining .CA (Canadian) Internet domain names which are integral to fair and successful entry into the Canadian e-commerce market. ICA’s position is that U.S. businesses should have the same opportunity to register Canadian .CA country code top level domain (ccTLD) names, as Canadian businesses have to register United States .US ccTLD domain names, and we urge the USTR to advance that position in ongoing negotiations…any U.S. entity or organization that wants to register a .CA domain name simply can’t, unless they either incorporate in Canada or wait months or years to obtain a Canadian trademark registration. Incorporating in Canada is a substantial expense and also necessarily involves filing of annual Canadian corporate tax returns and annual corporate maintenance, which adds an additional costly layer of expense and red tape for U.S. business that their Canadian counterparts are not subject to. Obtaining a Canadian trademark is also not a viable solution for a U.S. business wanting to immediately enter the Canadian online market, as it forces U.S. businesses to wait months or even years for approval by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office before a trademark registration is granted which would permit the U.S. business to register a .CA domain name. This puts U.S. competitors at a severe disadvantage to Canadians, who can open up their online business with a .CA domain name right away, with no waiting period whatsoever…Countless U.S. businesses that want to reflect their brand in a .CA domain name and do business in Canada have been turned away by CIRA due to these unfair and prejudicial Canadian Presence Requirements. Other U.S. businesses that have been forced to comply with the Canadian Presence Requirements face thousands of dollars of punitive government and professional fees, just for being able to enter the Canadian Internet commerce marketplace in a fully competitive manner…
Pursuant to Article 1204 of NAFTA:
No Party may require a service provider of another Party to establish or maintain a representative office or any form of enterprise, or to be resident, in its territory as a condition for the cross-border provision of a service.
Furthermore, there are no reservations made by Canada pursuant to Annex 1 of NAFTA which appear to purport to reserve any existing or future measures applicable to domain names.
Accordingly, it appears that CIRA’s Canadian Presence Requirements are a direct violation of Canada’s commitments under NAFTA, and should be the subject of compliance procedures and/or renegotiation.
Accordingly, we respectfully request that you take the foregoing into account in your NAFTA renegotiations, with a view to creating a level playing field for U.S. businesses when it comes to doing online business with Canada. We ask that U.S. business be given the same and equal opportunity to register .CA domain names as Canadians have to register .US domain names.
The full text of the letter can be viewed at ICA-Letter to Office of the United States Trade Representative Final Draft VERSION 2 Final
The Proposed Renewal of the .Net Registry Agreement (RA) was published for public comment by ICANN on April 20th. The biggest surprise about the proposed contract is how little it differs from the current one between ICANN and Verisign.
Conspicuously absent from the agreement is the new gTLD rights protection mechanism (RPM) of Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS). For the past two years ICA – along with ICANN’s Business Constituency and Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group – has been protesting the appearance of the URS in other legacy gTLD renewal agreements, contending that this is a policy decision specifically assigned under the Charter of the ongoing ICANN working group reviewing all RPMs at all gTLDs (note: ICA Counsel Philip Corwin is a Co-Chair of that WG). Trademark interests have countered that legacy registries were free to “voluntarily” adopt the new RPMs, although the presence of beneficial contract revisions or substantial financial concessions in those other renewal agreements raised questions about whether the URS inclusion was truly voluntary or a quid pro quo concession.
ICA had been concerned that Verisign would seek a reduction of the $0.75 .Net domain fee paid to ICANN to the standard registry fee level of $0.25 – and might acquiesce to URS in exchange for it. That change that would have netted Verisign savings of $7.6 million per year at the current level of 15.2 million .Net domain registrations. But the proposed renewal RA maintains the fee at $0.75, with the extra revenue still earmarked for special restricted funds for developing country Internet communities’ participation in ICANN, and to enhance and facilitate the security and stability of the domain name system (DNS).
While we have no insight as to what actually transpired during the closed door negotiations between ICANN’s Global Domain Division (GDD) and Verisign, we hope that ICA’s repeated protests against imposing URS via contract renewals was a factor in alerting the parties to the heated controversy that would arise from taking such action in regard to the second most populous gTLD. As one prominent industry publication recently noted:
Also likely to cheer up domainers is the fact that there are no new intellectual property protection mechanisms in the proposed contract.
Several post-2000 legacy gTLDs have agreed to incorporate the URS into their new contracts, leading to outrage from domainer organization the Internet Commerce Association.
ICA is worried that URS will one day wind up in .com without a proper ICANN community consensus, opening its members up to more risk of losing valuable domains.
The fact that URS is not being slipped into the .net contract makes it much less likely to be forced on .com too.
The .Com RA was extended last year through 2024, while the decision by the RPM Review WG on the extension of relevant new gTLD RPMs to legacy gTLDs will likely be made within the next year. Trademark interests that extolled the “voluntary” adoption of URS by other registry operators will have to employ pretzel logic if they plan to comment that Verisign should be involuntarily compelled to impose it on .Net registrants.
The proposed renewal RA will also let Verisign continue to increase .Net wholesale prices by up to ten percent each year. Verisign exercised that option in each of the six years of the current .Net RA, raising the wholesale price from $4.65 in 2011 to the current level of $8.20. Verisign will likely continue to do so under the proposed renewal agreement, at least until such price increases demonstrate a marked negative effect on .Net renewals. While carrying costs will thus likely increase for investors holding .Net domains in their portfolios, at least the potential price hikes are capped and predictable.
The proposed renewal RA does contain a number of materially new provisions, many of them drawn from the new gTLD and .Org RAs. One even provides ICANN with new powers in the highly unlikely event of a Verisign bankruptcy. But all are technical in nature, and none appear to raise any significant concerns for the domainer community.
The comment period closes on May 30th, and ICA will have more to say about this proposed RA by that date.
ICA fully supported the insistence of ICANN’s community that the IANA Transition had to be accompanied by substantial improvements in ICANN Accountability.
Some of those improvements were deemed to be necessary preconditions to the Transition. They included substantial revisions of ICANN’s Bylaws to reflect new community powers, such as the ability to veto budgets or remove Board members. Those were Workstream One Accountability measures.
But Workstream Two measures, to be accomplished post-Transition, are in many instances just as important. And that is particularly true of the steps necessary to make ICANN a far more transparent organization so that stakeholders can be fully aware of all that is going on and how decisions are reached.
That’s why ICA just filed a letter in strong support of the “CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 – Draft Recommendations to improve ICANN’s Transparency” published for public comment on February 21, 2017. Its most important recommendations relate to transforming ICANN’s Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) – ICANN’s version of the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – into a far more robust and useful tool.
At present the DIDP is a weak and loophole-riddled procedure, allowing ICANN staff far too much discretion to dribble out shreds of data while denying most of a disclosure request under broad and subjective exemptions. As stated in our letter:
Accountability requires transparency. No organization can be held accountable if it is permitted to impose excessive constraints on the release of internal documents and the vital information they contain to affected stakeholders. Our experience in attempting to use the current DIDP is that it fails to provide an adequate response to reasonable information requests in a timely manner. That is because the broad exceptions contained in it, combined with the excessive interpretative discretion allocated to ICANN staff, facilitates the withholding of important information to requesting parties simply because its disclosure might embarrass ICANN or raise further questions about its decisions and actions.
We therefore enthusiastically support the great majority of the recommendations made with the aim of converting the DIDP into a far more robust and useful procedure.
The Draft recommendations also propose useful improvements in the areas of documenting and reporting on ICANN’s interactions with all governments; transparency of Board deliberations; and enhanced whistleblower protections for ICANN employees.
Now that the comment period is concluded, we hope the subgroup will quickly resume its activities, fully consider all comments, and deliver a final set of recommendations as quickly as possible. These important transparency enhancements should be adopted and implemented at the earliest feasible time. Then the next time we contemplate filing a DIDP request we can be confident of actually receiving the requested data, with denial a narrow exception rather than a general rule.
You can read the full text of our letter here.
ICA has long been on record that it was an inappropriate usurpation of the GNSO’s policymaking role for ICANN Global Domain Division (GDD) staff to be urging legacy gTLD registry operators to adopt Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) in the course of renewal negotiations for their registry agreements (RAs). That’s because the URS was adopted as an “implementation detail” for new gTLDs, and an ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) is obligated by its Charter to recommend whether the URS and other new gTLDs should become Consensus Policy applicable to legacy gTLDs. In other words, URS at legacy gTLDs is a policy issue for which GDD should not be pursuing its own agenda. We have been joined in that position by both the Business Constituency (BC) and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), and all of us previously filed Reconsideration Requests on this matter that were rejected by the ICANN Board.
Recently, in separate conversations with senior ICANN executives, both I and a member of the NCSG were encouraged to use the new complaints procedure that ICANN will shortly be establishing at the initiative of CEO Goran Marby. We were urged to pursue it for the specific purpose of reexamining the previous GDD actions that resulted in URS via contract at .Pro, .Cat,, .Travel, .XXX — and potentially .Mobi (final action pending).. When I inquired how the new complaint process would operate and what relief might be available I was told those details were still being worked out.
Frankly, because the Complaints Officer will report to the General Counsel, who has a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of corporate ICANN, there is some natural skepticism about the final disposition of any initial finding by the Complaints Officer that could create legal liability or financial liability for ICANN. But given assurances by those ICANN executives that this new process would be relevant and responsive to those prior URS complaints, we were willing to wait and see who was appointed as the new Complaints Officer and how the process would work. We presumed that the hire for this new post would be an ICANN outsider, in order to eliminate any prior relationships or internal culture acclimatization that might create a perception or reality of bias; and that the individual would have a strong background in handling corporate accountability and effectively resolving complaints arising from within and outside an organization.
That announcement was made today –
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) today announced that Krista Papac, Director of Registry Services and Engagement for ICANN’s Global Domains Division, has been named as ICANN’s Complaints Officer.
We have serious concerns about this choice — and they have nothing to do with Ms. Papac, for whom we have the highest personal and professional regard.
But how can any individual who has worked for years within ICANN’s GDD be expected to cast prior experience and relationships aside to thoroughly and dispassionately investigate a complaint brought against GDD actions generally, or those of a specific member of the GDD staff?
More specifically, in regard to ICA’s longstanding complaint about imposition of URS through the RA renewal process, Ms. Papac was the principal GDD staff contact for all five of the RAs which we have objected to. So how can she be expected to objectively deal with a complaint about ICANN actions for which she had primary responsibility? In effect, we’d be asking her to investigate her own official actions.
Again, ICA is awaiting full information about the new complaints process and the available relief it may afford before deciding whether to test it. But given Ms. Papac’s primary responsibility for the very official actions we’d be complaining about, it seems like we would be compelled to ask her to recuse herself from handling the complaint. Whether she would, and who ICANN might then select to handle the complaint, are unanswered questions to be resolved down the road.
Regardless of the answers, today’s development reiterates the need for the Work Stream II Accountability process to recommend modifications that significantly enhance the powers of an independent ICANN Ombudsman reporting directly to the Board.
It seemed clear to us that ICANN should have sought a disinterested person with a strong and demonstrated background in effective corporate responsibility to handle this important new post. That it instead selected an ICANN insider seems like a major unforced error. And that’s our complaint of the day.
A detailed report on these developments follows.
Two weeks ago the Domain Name Association (DNA) announced the details of its Healthy Domains Initiative (HDI) that included “the creation of a voluntary third party mechanism, similar to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, for handling trademark violations, which would address illegal infringement of copyrighted material through the use of domain names”. An HDI background paper referred to this component as the “PIR proposal”, denoting its origin at the Public Interest Registry and PIR’s intent to be the first registry to implement this new DRP at .Org and the other gTLDs for which it is registry operator.
Both PIR and DNA have now put the Copyright UDRP on indefinite hold. As outlined below, ICA played a leading role in securing that result.
On February 23rd PIR posted the following notice on its website:
Over the past year, Public Interest Registry has been developing a highly focused policy that addresses systemic, large scale copyright infringement – the “Systemic Copyright Infringement Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy” or SCDRP.
Given certain concerns that have been recently raised in the public domain, Public Interest Registry is pausing its SCDRP development process to reflect on those concerns and consider forward steps. We will hold any further development of the SCDRP until further notice. (Emphasis added)
On February 24th the other shoe dropped with a DNA announcement that included the following:
On February 8, the DNA publicly announced the first output of its Healthy Domains Initiative: A set of 37 total “healthy practices” recommendations in four key areas… While each set of recommendations is important, a great deal of attention was focused on the copyright alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proposal—some have characterized it as a needless concession to ill-intentioned corporate interests, represents “shadow regulation” or is a slippery slope toward greater third party control of content on the Internet.
While the ADR of course is none of these, the DNA’s concern is that worries over these seven recommendations have overshadowed the value of the remaining 30. While addressing this and other illegalities is a priority for HDI, we heard and listened to various feedback, and have elected to take additional time to consider the details of the ADR recommendations… the DNA will take keen interest in any registrar’s or registry’s design and implementation of a copyright ADR, and will monitor its implementation and efficacy before refining its recommendations further. (Emphasis added)
While the PRI and DNA statements both leave open the possibility that they might revive development of the Copyright UDRP at some future time, our understanding is that there are no plans to do so. Further, notwithstanding the last sentence of the DNA’s statement, we believe that it is highly unlikely that any individual registrar or registry would advance such a DRP on its own without the protective endorsement of an umbrella trade association, or a multistakeholder organization like ICANN. Ever since the U.S. Congress abandoned the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) in January 2012 after millions of protesting calls and emails flooded Capitol Hill, it has been clear that copyright enforcement is the third rail of Internet policy.
ICA played a leading role in voicing concern and raising questions about the Copyright UDRP.
The day after it was first announced, we blogged the following:
It’s that last proposal that is of greatest concern to ICA and its members, since it would establish proprietary dispute resolution mechanisms that could result in domain extinguishment or transfer. Further, it could set a precedent which trademark owners might cite in seeking privatized “best practices” trademark dispute resolution policies that go beyond whatever community-based consensus policies emerge from ICANN’s ongoing working group reviewing all rights protections mechanisms (RPMs) at all gTLDs. Therefore, ICA plans to take a leading role in analyzing and monitoring the details and implementation of the new “Copyright UDRP” and in exploring means to assure that ICANN-mandated RPMs for trademark owners do not simply become a floor from which they can seek to pressure registries to adopt far more onerous and unbalanced private RPMs… While it’s true that registries have always been able to adopt protective measures that go beyond ICANN requirements – witness the protected marks blocking lists being offered by some new gTLD portfolio owners to TM rights holders as an alternative to sunrise registrations – we believe it is now time to examine and limit that ability in regard to DRPs that can result in the transfer of valuable domains. ICA intends to raise that matter within the ICANN community and to seek allies for the proposition that all parties benefit from the adoption of uniform, consensus-based RPM policies as opposed to a disjointed system of varying RPMs designed to benefit just one side of the debate.
The following day we further explained our concerns:
This proposal would establish a new unregulated private legal dispute system for domain names involving claims of copyright infringement outside of any ICANN-mandated legal rights protection mechanisms (RPMs)… the .Org registry operator, Public Interest Registry (PIR), has already announced its intent to soon launch its own such “Copyright ADRP” that would award domain names to prevailing copyright claimants.
This is a deeply troubling development as ICANN has up to now been the sole source of all domain name related RPMs that can result in domain transfer or suspension at gTLDs. The ICA is concerned that such a development outside of the ICANN multi-stakeholder, community-based consensus model, without public consultation, effectively circumvents ICANN’s established role and obligations, and may lead to private companies electing to force their own private legal regimes on Internet users and domain name registrants.
ICA Counsel Philip Corwin continued our organization’s involvement in the evolving and heated debate through participation in the Internet Policy email list maintained by PIR’s parent organization, the Internet Society (ISOC).
On February 17th he posted the following to that list:
This past week I have been attending the Intersessional meeting of ICANN’s Non-Contracted Party House (NCPH) in Reykjavik, Iceland in my capacity as one of the GNSO Councilors representing the Business Constituency (BC – and noting that the BC has not taken any position on any component of HDI and that this communication is being undertaken in my ICA role and not on behalf of the BC). During the meeting I engaged in conversations with many other members of the NCPH who share substantial concerns regarding the Copyright ADRP and its imminent implementation by PIR.
Those concerned NCPH delegates have asked me to draft a letter that can be signed by individuals and organizations requesting that PIR and ISOC undertake an open and transparent dialogue with the broad Internet community before making any final decision on whether and in what form to implement the Copyright ADRP. We share the common belief that PIR, as the registry operator affiliated with ISOC, has a particular responsibility to engage in such a dialogue before granting ISOC’s implicit blessing to an unprecedented dispute resolution procedure concerning copyright disputes. That is particularly true given that the DNA developed the HDI components without undertaking the broad outreach and discussion beyond its membership that it had initially indicated would be forthcoming.
On February 23rd, just after the PIR notice of intent to halt implementation was posted to the ISOC email list by Sally Wentworth, ISOC’s Vice President for Global Policy Development, Corwin posted this response:
Thank you for alerting us to the posting of this important statement by PIR. I welcome the announcement that PIR “is pausing its SCDRP development process to reflect on those concerns [raised in the public domain]” and “will hold any further development of the SCDRP until further notice”.
Last Friday I posted an email to this list stating in part that “concerned NCPH [ICANN Non-Contracted Party House] delegates have asked me to draft a letter that can be signed by individuals and organizations requesting that PIR and ISOC undertake an open and transparent dialogue with the broad Internet community before making any final decision on whether and in what form to implement the Copyright ADRP”. The threshold purpose of this letter was to convince PIR to halt any rush toward SCDRP implementation and to use that time out to consider the many concerns that have already been raised, as well as engage in a more expansive dialogue that included detailed discussion of the substance of the underlying and so far unrevealed draft policy and rules for the SCDRP.
Now that PIR has voluntarily declared a pause to any further development of the SCDRP I no longer see any immediate need to send a letter requesting such action. I do hope that PIR’s “forward steps” will include a broader engagement and dialogue with concerned parties. I thank all those parties who privately noticed me of their interest in signing such a letter, and I look forward to working with them and all other concerned parties as the situation develops.
While the draft letter was just about to be circulated for review at the time of the PIR announcement, expressions of interest in signing it had been received from multiple members of the NCPH as well as from individual and organizations (including national ISOC chapters) around the globe.
The Copyright UDRP initiative clearly elicited deep concern from multiple parties with varied Internet policy interests, and ICA commends PIR and DNA for recognizing the validity of those concerns and halting implementation and further development of the proposal.
As noted in ICA’s initial statements on the copyright UDRP, we believe that ICANN’s transparent and inclusive multistakeholder policy development process (PDP) is the most appropriate venue for consideration of any “private legal dispute system for domain names involving claims of copyright infringement”. The opening step to initiating such a PDP would be a request for ICANN staff to develop an Issues Paper outlining the scope of the underlying problem and the available mechanisms for ICANN’s contracted parties to address domains implicated in pervasive copyright infringement, as well as the legal and operational issues that would arise in the development of a new copyright DRP. It would be particularly important for such a document to examine whether existing means, such as registry/registrar enforcement of standard Terms of Service (TOS) that prohibit the use of domains for such unlawful purposes as IP infringement, as well as use of national notice-and-takedown laws such as the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), are insufficient to address the problem – which should be a threshold determination before any further development of a Copyright UDRP is undertaken.
If ICANN undertakes such an inquiry ICA will participate in good faith and with the objective of ensuring the health of the domain name system (DNS) and the domain name industry through balanced and community-based policies that effectively address IP infringement while maintaining procedural and substantive due process for domain registrants.
Yesterday, in an article published at CircleID.com, our fellow trade group the Domain Name Association (DNA) announced the rollout of its Healthy Domains Initiative (HDI). DNA was established concurrent with the launch of the new gTLD program, and primarily represents new gTLD registries as well as some registrars, but not registrants (including domain investors and developers). ICA and DNA share a number of members and we generally view our work as complementary.
It’s that last proposal that is of greatest concern to ICA and its members, since it would establish proprietary dispute resolution mechanisms that could result in domain extinguishment or transfer. Further, it could set a precedent which trademark owners might cite in seeking privatized “best practices” trademark dispute resolution policies that go beyond whatever community-based consensus policies emerge from ICANN’s ongoing working group reviewing all rights protections mechanisms (RPMs) at all gTLDs. Therefore, ICA plans to take a leading role in analyzing and monitoring the details and implementation of the new “Copyright UDRP” and in exploring means to assure that ICANN-mandated RPMs for trademark owners do not simply become a floor from which they can seek to pressure registries to adopt far more onerous and unbalanced private RPMs.
Of course, no one wants “unhealthy domains”, and all four of the targeted concerns are all worthy areas for exploring more effective responses. That said, the devil is in the details, and each of the separate components will no doubt be analyzed for their potential effectiveness as well as consistency with prevailing law and adequate due process for domain registrants.
In its background paper, DNA relates the genesis of the HDI initiative:
During the ICANN meeting in Marrakech in March 2016, parties interested in HDI met to further review and discuss these ideas. It was agreed in that meeting that the next best output for the HDI effort was to put forth a set of operational principles to which contracted parties could reasonably adhere. HDI leaders thus focused on such a document as the first deliverable in the HDI effort.
Now at that 2016 Marrakech meeting ICA and many other parties responded affirmatively to DNA’s request for input on the HDI initiative from those outside its membership. Unfortunately, once we signed on there was no real follow-up by DNA; ICA made several inquiries and was told that we’d be hearing more soon, but we never did. It’s unfortunate that DNA chose to develop HDI without the benefit of additional viewpoints, and it was apparent from e-mail exchanges yesterday on the HDI list that many of those who offered to provide outside input were disappointed and chagrinned that, after responding affirmatively, they were never brought into the planning loop and did not even receive an advance heads up of the HDI announcement.
The bottom line is that ICA had no advance knowledge of the details of HDI and no opportunity to provide substantive input. So our fingerprints are nowhere on it.
The HDI background paper does state that for each of the four target areas “1-2 HDI committee volunteers… will direct subteams in developing implementation plans”, but it’s not clear whether those outside of DNA will be solicited in regard to such implementation.
Turning to the initiative that is likely of greatest interest and concern to ICA members, the “Voluntary third party handling of copyright infringement cases (PIR proposal)” aims to “to provide a voluntary mechanism to help mitigate copyright infringement in the DNS, by a method similar to those employed by trademark owners to protect their interests”. However, it is not clear that the UDRP is a suitable model for copyright disputes, which tend to be far more complex than trademark infringement allegations and where free speech and fair use are often at issue.
An adverse ruling against the domain registrant would result in “cancellation of registration or transfer to Complainant”. A fuller explanation in the background paper posits that the aim of this “Copyright Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy (“Copyright ADRP”) is to provide a legally effective and efficient mechanism mitigating pervasive instances of copyright infringement in the DNS, while ensuring that Registrants’ due process rights are observed”.
The potential for domain loss from a Copyright ADRP decision could well have a chilling effect on the domain leasing and licensing business, as the owner of a valuable domain with no domain name trademark issues could be reluctant to risk its loss if a lessee/licensee used it to distribute content later found to infringe copyright.
As noted above, this copyright UDRP is dubbed the “PIR Proposal”, and according to a related news article:
Public Interest Registry, the company behind .org, tells DI that it hopes to adopt the UDRP-style anti-piracy measure by the end of the first quarter…PIR general counsel Liz Finberg, the main architect of the policy, said that these details are currently being finalized in coordination with UDRP arbitration firm Forum (formerly the National Arbitration Forum). The standard, she said, will be “clear and convincing evidence” of “pervasive and systemic copyright infringement”.
It remains to be seen whether Internet rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation will support this Copyright ADRP or blast it as a new variation on the private adjudication approach proposed in the PIPA/SOPA legislation that went down in flames after millions of calls and emails bombarded Capitol Hill. Interestingly, PIR was founded by the Internet Society (ISOC) and ISOC appoints PIR’s Board members. In December 2011 ISOC joined the broad and vocal opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), stating “While the Internet Society agrees that combating illicit online activity is an important public policy objective, these critical issues must be addressed in ways that do not undermine the viability of the Internet as a platform for innovation across all industries by compromising its global architecture”.
While ISOC was primarily concerned with the negative impact of ISP’s DNS filtering upon Internet security and stability it also stated:
DNS filtering and blocking raises human rights and freedom of expression concerns, and often curtails international principles of rule of law and due process. Some countries have used DNS filtering and blocking as a way to restrict access to the global Internet and to curb free expression.
The United States has been a strong proponent of online Internet freedoms and therefore has an important responsibility to balance local responsibilities and global impact, especially with respect to Internet policy. Given this commitment to global Internet freedom, it would be harmful to the global Internet if the United States were to implement such an approach.
It seems to us that those very same concerns about human rights, freedom of expression, and due process may be raised by an ADRP system that results in domain cancelation or transfer to copyright owner complainants, especially given the content industry’s long history of aggressive, pushing-the-envelope use of all available mechanisms to address alleged infringement. So we’ll be watching to see whether PIR’s proposed implementation of ADRP stirs up concerns among ISOC members similar to those inspired by SOPA.
Finally, regardless of its final details or whether it is implemented, ICA is quite concerned that any proposal for privatized DRPs may be cited by trademark owners to pressure registries to adopt “best practices” that go beyond official ICANN RPM policy. Right now more than one hundred members of the ICANN community are engaged in a working group (WG) that is reviewing all RPMs at all gTLDs, including the URS and UDRP.
What if the final consensus decision of that WG is that the URS remedy should remain domain suspension and not transfer, or that the UDRP standard of “bad faith registration and use” should remain as is? Are TM owners then free to develop their own “best practices” that include domain transfer via URS, or a bad faith registration or use standard? What’s the point of going through a multi-year exercise if those dissatisfied with the result can seek stiffer private policies? Just how many bites at the apple should trademark holders get, especially when such private initiatives just build upon ICANN’s existing consensus-based polices and therefore almost always end with a lessened burden of proof and harsher penalties, ratcheting ever forward on behalf of trademark owners and against domain registrants?
While it’s true that registries have always been able to adopt protective measures that go beyond ICANN requirements – witness the protected marks blocking lists being offered by some new gTLD portfolio owners to TM rights holders as an alternative to sunrise registrations – we believe it is now time to examine and limit that ability in regard to DRPs that can result in the transfer of valuable domains. ICA intends to raise that matter within the ICANN community and to seek allies for the proposition that all parties benefit from the adoption of uniform, consensus-based RPM policies as opposed to a disjointed system of varying RPMs designed to benefit just one side of the debate.
As we had noted last month, the .US ccTLD, which has been operated by Neustar under an NTIA contract since 2001, had solicited comment on proposals to release one and two character domains and to begin offering a privacy service to .US registrants – as well as to re-designate certain existing domains as “premium”.
After some spirited internal discussion by ICA members, we filed a comment letter expressing our consensus view on these proposals.
In regard to the proposed release of one and two character domains, ICA took a position of non-opposition, provided that two key conditions were met to assure that the plan sets a positive precedent:
Turning to the proposed offering of a privacy service, we agreed that the current prohibition of such services was a key issue suppressing registration in the .US TLD, and that it also likely led to some submission of inaccurate WHOIS data. We therefore supported the proposal, including its availability to commercial entities, as one that would address these shortcomings while meeting the goal of providing registrants with the protection they demand and also addressing the legitimate concerns of law enforcement.
Finally, there was one part of the premium name proposal that we opposed, that being the reclassification of approximately 100,000 currently authorized .US domains as “premium” under a tiered pricing approach. While noting the details were less objectionable than domain reclassification programs we have seen proposed in the past, we nonetheless believe that implementation of such a plan by a “legacy TLD” would set a worrisome precedent. We also stated our belief that the prices of existing and authorized domains, especially those of legacy TLDs, should be set in the robust, competitive and efficient secondary domain marketplace and not unilaterally imposed by registry operators.
Neustar and its Stakeholder Council will now review all comments received and then decide on next steps. That hopefully will lead to submission of the one and two character domain release program, and the proposed privacy service, to NTIA for review and approval.
Our complete comment letter follows:
Internet Commerce Association
1155 F Street, NW
January 16, 2017
By Email to email@example.com
Re: Proposed usTLD Premium Domain Name Plan and Privacy Service Plan
Dear Neustar and members of the usTLD Stakeholder Council:
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Internet Commerce Association (ICA). ICA is a not-for-profit trade association representing the domain name industry, including domain registrants, domain marketplaces, and direct search providers. Its membership is composed of domain name registrants who invest in domain names (DNs) and develop the associated websites, as well as the companies that serve them. Professional domain name registrants are a major source of the fees that support registrars, registries, and ICANN. ICA members own and operate approximately ten percent of all existing Internet domains on behalf of their own domain portfolios as well as those of thousands of customers.
We note that Philip Corwin of Virtualaw LLC serves as a member of the usTLD Stakeholder Council. Mr. Corwin also serves as Counsel to the ICA, and we appreciate the fact that through his service the views of domain investors and developers are given voice within the Council.
This letter addresses the proposed usTLD Premium Domain Name Plan as well as the Privacy Service Plan, both of which were published for public comment on December 15, 2016. ICA members have been fully briefed by our Counsel in order to gain a full understanding of the proposed plans that are the focus of this comment letter, and have engaged in vigorous and robust discussion of them. This comment letter represents the consensus views of our membership on these matters.
Response to Stakeholder Council Questions
Response to questions regarding the Premium Domain Name Plan
The Stakeholder Council has posed three questions regarding the Premium Domain Name Plan. Our short answers are below, followed by narrative explanations of our position in the General Discussion section.
Response to questions regarding the Privacy Service Plan
The Stakeholder Council has posed three questions regarding the Privacy Service Plan. Our short answers are below, followed by narrative explanations of our position in the General Discussion section.
Release of 1 and 2 Character Domains
ICA does not oppose the release of presently reserved 1 and 2 character .US domains pursuant to the proposed plan as a means to generate press attention to the .US ccTLD, as well as to generate revenues that can fund public relations effort with the same goal. As proposed, this program should be of benefit to both current .US registrants and the registry operator if it drives greater public awareness of the .US namespace, strengthens the secondary market value of .US domains, and leads to an overall increase in .US domain registrations. While .US may never gain the market share of other prominent ccTLDs in their home markets, we nonetheless believe that there is considerable upside potential in overall .US registration totals.
ICA endorses the proposal to hold an open 30-day solicitation period prior to the domain names being available on a first-come, first-served basis that would not include an exclusive access period specifically for registered marks, but would include messaging that would highlight the benefit for any company or companies with 1- or 2-character registered marks to acquire these names prior to the general 30-day first-come, first-serve launch; with this solicitation period open on an equal basis to both trademark holders and the public. Under the plan, any domain name that garners two or more interested purchasers goes to a closed auction and any domain name with a single applicant is registered at the listed price, without any additional application fees or increased registration fees during the Open Solicitation period.
We agree with Neustar’s conclusion that there is no clear current standard or common practice for the release of such short domain names by a ccTLD, that a traditional Sunrise procedure would require significant additional resources, and that the names that could correspond to registered marks would generally be acronyms that could legitimately apply to a wide range of entities or individuals.
The equal access proposed to be provided to trademark owners and members of the general public, including domain investors/developers, is a key criterion for ICA’s members. Trademark owners will of course be protected against any infringing misuse of the released domains by the usTLD Dispute
Resolution Policy, and the usTLD Rapid
Suspension Dispute Policy – both of which are somewhat more stringent that corresponding ICANN rights protection mechanisms (RPM) policies – and by applicable trademark law.
ICA’s non-opposition to the release on 1 and 2 character .US domains is conditioned upon two requirements to assure that the plan sets a positive precedent:
In regard to that final condition, we note that even now, while Neustar is a public company, a review of Neustar’s most recent 10-Q and 10-K filings with the SEC yields no broken out data concerning the revenue generated through acting as the .US registry operator. Now that Neustar has agreed to be acquired by Golden Gate Capital and is expected to become a private entity by the third quarter of 2017, even that level of financial transparency will soon be gone. Therefore, only NTIA will likely be in a position to have knowledge of the total revenues generated by the sale of 1 and 2 character .US domains, as well as the level of expenditures on .US public relations efforts. Based upon the market valuation of short domain names at major registries, we would anticipate that those revenues will aggregate in at least the millions of dollars. We further note that part 2 the 2014 .US registry agreement entered into by Neustar contemplates that, in the event of any future expansion of the usTLD space, the fees levied for services by Neustar as Contractor should consider “cost plus a fair and reasonable profit”, but not a windfall profit.
Dedication of the realized revenues to such PR efforts would be consistent with Neustar’s statement that a major objective of the release is to “Generate revenue from the sale of .US Premium Domains that will be directly used to fund future marketing, promotion and community-building campaigns to build and grow the .US namespace”. While we trust that Neustar will undertake such efforts if the plan is approved, only NTIA will be in a position to verify that these campaigns are undertaken in a manner that substantially utilizes all of the revenues within a reasonable time period following their generation.
Premium General Availability “Tiered Pricing” Program
ICA is strongly opposed to this portion of the proposal, which would reclassify approximately 100,000 currently authorized .US domains as “premium” within the following categories:
We take this position notwithstanding the fact that, now that Neustar has identified the categories of domains it would reclassify as premium, sophisticated domain investors could readily seek to acquire both presently registered as well as unregistered .US domains within these categories in anticipation of implementation of the plan and a potential increase in secondary market value. We also recognize that the proposed high/low pricing model is less objectionable than domain reclassification programs we have seen proposed in the past, given that it would not affect current registrants or their renewal or transfer costs; that currently registered domain names identified as premium will incur a premium fee only if they expire, go through the redemption process and become available for re-registration again by new or different customers; and that the premium pricing would typically be a one-time event with annual renewal fees being the same as for non-premium domains.
Nonetheless, we believe that implementation of such a plan by a “legacy TLD” would set a worrisome precedent. Other registry operators might well cite approval of this portion of the .US proposal as basis for similar plans by legacy gTLDs, including more radical versions featuring tiered pricing of both acquisitions and renewals.
While new gTLDs established via ICANN’s recently implemented program have complete latitude to adopt any premium pricing model they wish to, these gTLDs are entrepreneurial efforts risking private capital; and domain registrants who choose to acquire their domains do so with full knowledge of the present registry rules, and that they can change at any time. .US, by contrast, is a long-established ccTLD – indeed, it is the Internet’s first ccTLD, created in 1985 and originally administered by Jon Postel; and has been administered under NTIA contract by Neustar since 2001. Reclassification of .US domains should not be permitted 32 years after the registry’s creation and 16 years after Neustar was selected as registry operator. That is particularly true when the registry is a governmental resource that should broadly benefit the general public.
As a general proposition, we believe that the prices of existing and authorized domains, especially those of legacy TLDs, should be set in the robust, competitive and efficient secondary domain marketplace and not unilaterally imposed by registry operators. We have also received informed feedback that even the proposed high/low program could present substantial administrative difficulties for registrars.
Further, the proposal would appear to clash with certain provisions of part 1 of the 2014 .US registry agreement between Neustar and NTIA. These include requirements that registry fees be “fair and reasonable”; as well as conflict of interest provisions that require Neustar to “take measures to avoid any activity or situation that could compromise, or give the appearance of compromising, the impartial and objective performance of the Contract”, with the resulting conflicts policy required to address “possible direct or indirect financial gain from Contractor’s policy decisions”.
We also substantially oppose the breadth of the related proposal that .US Premium Names may also be allocated on a non-cash or discount-cash basis, to support organizations or activities that will help to spread awareness, growth and use of the .US domain through a .US Premium Development Program open to big brands, individuals, commercial or non-commercial businesses and government entities. While .US is charged with advancing certain public purposes as a ccTLD, any domain discounting program should be narrowly restricted to charitable non-profit and governmental entities, with all others required to pay market prices and standard annual fees.
Privacy Service Plan
ICA agrees with the view of the .US Stakeholder Council that identifies “the lack of privacy and proxy services as a key issue suppressing registration in the .US TLD”. The lack of privacy services is a strong deterrent to potential registrants with legitimate privacy objectives, including the avoidance of spam and harassment.
We also agree that “In the absence of privacy services, risk-averse registrants may choose to attempt to submit false or inaccurate information into WHOIS’ and that with “the implementation of privacy services, the WHOIS database may be more accurate and allow law enforcement to obtain the information it needs”. And we concur that the availability or privacy protections will likely boost .US registrations by “international corporations, global media publications, global nonprofit organizations, churches, sports teams, families, small businesses, blogs, home businesses, retail stores, social media messaging sites, and gaming sites – the demographic of registrants who are most likely to be affected by the existing prohibition on privacy and proxy services”.
Therefore, we support a change of registry policy in this regard, and believe that the privacy plan meets the goal of providing “registrants with the protection they demand ensuring to also address the concerns of law enforcement”.
The positive aspects of the proposed registry level plan are that it will allow the registry operator to maintain firm control of the centralized authoritative database of WHOIS information; be built into the registry software, compliant with all .US policy and security standards; and enable Neustar to provide one-stop access to law enforcement agencies, rights holders, and others with lawful requests in near real time. This approach will also cause the least disruption to registrar business models.
We also agree that such privacy service should be available to commercial entities. This is consistent with recently adopted, carefully developed ICANN policy in this area; ICA’s Counsel participated in development of the policy and is now part of its implementation group. Barring such a service for commercial entities would negate much of its potential benefit for no justifiable reason, given that legitimate requests for registrant data will be honored. Such an unnecessary carve out would also raise administrative burdens and associated costs.
By remaining the privacy provider, Neustar will be best positioned to both ensure registrant privacy while assuring that the authoritative contact information can be accessed by law enforcement and other authorized parties with a lawful request.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments on the proposed .US Premium Domain Name and Privacy Service Plans. We hope they are helpful to the further consideration of this matter by Neustar and the usTLD Stakeholder Council.
President and Member of the Board, Internet Commerce Association
Once again, staff of ICANN’s Global Domains Division (GDD) has used a legacy gTLD’s contract renewal process to impose Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) on that gTLD — despite the fact that the URS is not an ICANN consensus policy applicable to legacy gTLDs.
And, once again, the registry operator acquiescing to URS is reaping significant financial benefits as a reward for its acquiescence.
The leaders of GDD are well aware that the URS is the subject of an ongoing policy development process (PDP) responsible for determining its efficacy and whether it has been properly administered and – most important – recommending whether or not it should become a Consensus Policy required of all legacy gTLDs, and what appropriate legal and transition arrangements should accompany that potential decision. Yet, as conceded by GDD head Akram Atallah during the Hyderabad Public Forum, their negotiating position for every legacy gTLD RA renewal negotiation is this: “So basically the negotiations are – the registries come and ask for something and we tell them please adopt the new gTLD contract”. In other words, to get the RA changes you want or need you must accept the URS.
On December 23, 2016 ICANN published for public comment the “Proposed Renewal of .MOBI Sponsored Registry Agreement”, with a February 1st comment filing deadline. The notice contains GDD’s standard flimsy and non-convincing rationale that, “The renewal proposal is a result of bilateral discussions between ICANN and Afilias Technologies Limited (the Registry Operator for the .MOBI TLD).” While the discussions were clearly between two parties and therefore bilateral, they took place behind closed doors and out of sight of the ICANN community that is supposed to make the policy decisions that impact it. Further, bilateral does not equate to balanced when the decisive power in these discussions is clearly held by GDD staff, with their ability to approve or deny requested RA modifications as well as hold out financial rewards to compliant registry operators.
The .Mobi gTLD was originally established as a “sponsored” registry to serve global users of mobile phones, but the revised registry agreement (RA) will largely shed that status and generally transition .Mobi to the standard new gTLD RA. Afilias, the registry operator, will see its annual registry fixed fee cut in half, down to $25,000 from the current level of $50,000. In addition, the approximately 690,000 .Mobi domains will become subject to the standard $0.25 per domain annual transaction fee; .Mobi domains are currently subject to a price-linked variable fee ranging from $0.15 to $0.75 per transaction.
We saw this same type of cash benefits for URS acquiescence horse trade take place recently with .XXX. ICA’s comment letter on that RA revision implored GDD to respect the ongoing PDP process, stating:
The 2016 launch of the PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs, which is tasked with recommending whether new gTLD RPMs should become Consensus Policy for legacy gTLDs, makes it particularly inappropriate for GDD staff to continue seeking that de facto policy result in non-transparent, bilateral RA negotiations that contravene the policymaking process set forth in the Bylaws… GDD staff should demonstrate their clear commitment to ICANN’s bottom-up policymaking process by ceasing and desisting from seeking top-down imposition of new gTLD RPMs in legacy gTLD RA negotiations until the RPM Review WG has completed its work reviewing those RPMs and its final recommendations – including whether those RPMs should become Consensus Policy — have been acted upon by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board.
Clearly, GDD staff were unmoved by that entreaty and are determined to seek imposition of URS on every legacy gTLD coming up for contract renewal.
As stated in our .XXX comment letter, these closed door contract renewal negotiations are particularly odious when financial incentives are utilized, resulting in a situation where “two parties with no central role in ICANN’s policy development process are effectively permitted to collude in closed door negotiations on a decision with broad policy implications. With each legacy TLD revision in which GDD staff succeeds in imposing new gTLD provisions that are not yet ICANN Consensus Policy they create de facto consensus policy, one negotiation at a time. This is wrong and it should stop.”
As noted, this proposed RA, if approved, will affect about 690,000 registered domains at a legacy gTLD by imposing a new gTLD rights protection mechanism (RPM) that was adopted as an “implementation measure” and was not supposed to be applied to any legacy gTLD unless and until it was adopted as Consensus Policy. In retrospect it appears that the “bait” was leading the community to believe the new gTLD RPMs would only be applicable to new gTLDs and off-limits for legacy ones until a PDP changed that, and the “switch” occurred when GDD started pressing them on legacy gTLDs in RA renewal negotiations from 2015 onward.
But the real test of GDD’s illicit strategy of incremental de facto policymaking will come later this year, when the .Net RA comes up for renewal. We have no idea whether Verisign will be seeking any substantial revisions to that RA that would provide GDD staff with substantial leverage to impose URS, nor do we know whether Verisign would be amenable to that tradeoff.
But we do know that there are 15.2 million .Net domains registered at present, and that it would be unconscionable and highly controversial to impose a policy change of this magnitude on the second most populous legacy gTLD when the PDP jury is still out on whether URS should become Consensus Policy. Unlike the lesser gTLDs on which URS has been imposed by contractual fiat, .Net domains constitute longstanding platforms for business and speech dating back to ICANN’s inception, and many command substantial secondary market valuations. If URS is to come to .Net it should only be through community consensus as set out in ICANN’s Bylaws, not a backroom deal.
Further, the publication of any revised .Net RA will likely occur just prior to the time that the RPM Review PDP will be debating whether URS and the other new gTLD RPMs should become Consensus Policy. So if the revised .Net RA contains the URS that would constitute a gross interference by GDD staff in the ICANN community’s policy process, with severely prejudicial effects. Indeed, it seems likely that GDD staff is seeking to create enough “facts” to dictate the PDP’s outcome.
It is now unquestionably clear that GDD staff lacks sufficient propriety to cease and desist from making policy changes through RA negotiations notwithstanding its corrosive effect upon the perceived legitimacy and primacy of the ICANN policymaking process. The real question of the moment is whether ICANN’s Board will do the right thing and intervene by declaring a moratorium on this tawdry practice until the community members comprising the PDP working group make their own informed and unpressured decision on whether URS should become a Consensus Policy.
Will the ICANN Board members demonstrate their respect for the integrity of ICANN’s policymaking process, and the sensitivity of the unfolding situation, to understand that continued toleration of this GDD practice undermines confidence in ICANN’s commitment to bottom up, community-based consensus policy development? Or will they continue to cover for GDD staff with narrow technocratic and self-serving legalistic fictions? We shall soon find out.
It has been my honor for the past two years to have been a member of the .US TLD Stakeholder Council http://www.neustar.us/ustld-stakeholder-council and, in that capacity, to provide the perspective of domain investors and developers to the operation of the USA’s ccTLD.
On Thursday, December 15th .US issued two important requests for public comment. The first relates to the potential release of 1 and 2 character .US domains, and is particularly significant for domain investors and other potential end users. The second relates to the potential allowance of .US domain registrants to utilize privacy protection services for the first time.
The comment period for both requests closes on January 16, 2017. Anyone can file a comment, and ICA is soliciting feedback from its members as it considers filing its own.
Here is some background information provided by Neustar on the two proposals. Full PDFs containing additional information are available through the hyperlinks below—
usTLD Premium Domain Name Plan http://www.neustar.us/ustld-stakeholder-council/ustld-premium-domain-name-plan/
The usTLD Stakeholder Council (“Council”) and Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”), the registry operator for the usTLD, is seeking public comment on the Council’s recommendation to Neustar to release one and two character domain names in connection with the usTLD Premium Domain Name (“PDN”) plan. The primary goal of the proposed PDN Plan is to increase the use and awareness of the .US brand in the consumer marketplace. Additionally, the PDN Plan provides the opportunity for Neustar to allocate .US Premium Names to support organizations or activities that will help spread awareness or encourage growth of the .US domain.
As part of an overall effort by Neustar, to raise awareness and use of the .US domain, the PDN Plan would make available to the public at a premium price certain high-value, highly-visible, premium .US domain names (“.US Premium Domains”), some of which are currently designated as “reserved” (including one- and two-character .US domain names), and others that would be newly designated as such. Given the level of investment, buyers of high value premium domain names typically put these names to good use – building web properties that are heavily marketed and promoted. This is beneficial to the entire namespace, getting the most coveted names circulated.
While intended to protect existing intellectual property rights and preserve the legacy locality namespace, the release and implementation of a premium name space will foster new growth for the .US domain extension using current best practices and allocation standards. Throughout the plan, all policies and restrictions regarding two-character state and territorial abbreviations or numbered domain names are recommended to still be in effect.
For more details, please review the full text of the plan.
The Council is seeking public comments on the following questions:
Should the usTLD policy be revised to allow the release of 1 and 2 character domains?
Should the usTLD registry operator include currently unregistered and registered name as premium names? (The premium plan will not affect existing registrants’ domain names, nor will it affect transfers of existing names.)
What, if any, impact would the introduction of 2 character names at the second level have on the legacy city.state.us registrations in .US? Please explain any concerns you have in detail.
.US TLD Privacy Service Plan http://www.neustar.us/ustld-stakeholder-council/ustld-privacy-service-plan/
The usTLD Stakeholder Council (“Council”) and Neustar, Inc. (“Neustar”), the registry operator for the usTLD, is seeking public comment on its recommendation to allow for the implementation of a registry-based wholesale privacy registration service in the .US Top Level Domain. Stakeholders at the 2015 usTLD Stakeholder Town Hall identified the lack of privacy services as a key issue suppressing domain name registration in the .US TLD. In an increasingly competitive landscape, in which many of the competitors to .US allow some type of privacy or proxy service, Neustar and the Council want to increase domain name registrations to ensure a robust, healthy namespace and believe that the implementation of such services will put .US on an equal footing with its closest competitors in both the generic and country code top-level domain namespaces.
Neustar operates registry services for the usTLD pursuant to a contract with the Department of Commerce. Currently, that contract does not allow for the provision of privacy services. When a registrant buys a domain name, registry policy in line with industry standards require registrars to obtain and provide to the registry, the registrant’s contact information, including name, physical address, email address, and phone number. This information is publically available in the WHOIS database, a searchable directory that holds all the contact information for domain name registrants. The WHOIS database is freely searchable by anyone with access to the internet. In these times of increased awareness of the dangers of identity theft and other threats, many registries and registrars offer privacy services to their registrants. A privacy service lists alternative, reliable registrant contact information in WHOIS, while keeping the domain name registered to its beneficial user, the registrant.
The Council is requesting your comments on a plan that will be submitted to the Department of Commerce that will request authority under the contract to allow privacy services to be implemented for .US.
For more details, please review the full text of the plan.
The Council is seeking public comments on the following questions:
Do you support the implementation of privacy services for .US domain name holders?
What issues, if any, will registrars have with implementing privacy services as set forth in the plan?
Does the plan adequately address the concerns of law enforcement while preserving the expected level of privacy of registrants who request the service?