Posts filed under 'ICANN Community'
by Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
As you can see from information about the wiki, ICANNWiki.org is based in the city of Portland, in the state of Oregon.
Oregon is one of the world leaders for the Open Source community. In fact, it is not uncommon for companies from around the globe to open up a research and development arm here in Oregon to take advantage of Oregon’s Open Source community.
Portland, Oregon’s largest city, is home to many people who actively work with and develop for the Open Source community. As such there are many ideas and conversations regarding community. From my perspective, with my position at ICANNWiki, I can not think of a better city in which to be located to have active, ongoing conversations with other members of the Open Source community.
With that said I was at an informal after-hours event a couple of days ago where I had an interesting conversation with a gentleman whose business profession is that of copy writing. I have always viewed copy writers of any country as the unofficial keepers of their respective language. A good copy writer ensures what we read not only conveys the message properly, they ensure that what is conveyed is grammatically correct.
After learning about ICANNWiki.org and how it is a neutral resource for the various communities that make up the overall ICANN community, those being ICANN academics, registries, registrars and domainers, he could not help but refer to this community as “Your Community”. He was not referring to “Your Community” in a bad way, just his way of referencing the whole ICANN community in our conversation.
The reason I thought this conversation was interesting enough for a separate post is every language, in some way or another is adaptable over time. English is one of the more flexible, or adaptable languages out there. He noted that as time has progressed the English language has evolved very rapidly in the last decade. True, the advent of computers have brought English terms to English and other languages, such as “PC”, “hard disk” and “mouse”, to name a few. Also, through “Your Community” new words have emerged, such as “Google”, “Twitter” and “Yelp”, also to name a few. However this gentleman felt that “Your Community”, or the overall ICANN community, has done more for bringing change to, or “influencing” the English language than any other such “influencer”. What he was referring to was how the Internet has brought people together, locally as well as globally and how communication can take place NOW as opposed to later. People can text, call, IM (instant message), e-mail, play games, connect with other networks, etc… FAR more easily than they could a little over a decade ago. Think back to your communication habits or capabilities back in 1995.
ICANN has created the standards and stability for the Internet. Companies and domainers, through development, provide the content and applications people use while registries and registrars provide the naming conventions people use to access applications. So, in a nut shell, “Your Community” has done a lot to advance the evolution of the English language.
With that said I could not help but wonder if a person, whose profession is copy writer in the English language, has already seen a quicker evolution of English, what will other copy writers experience of their respective languages once IDNs have been implemented for 5 years?
So while he kept referring to “Your Community” in our conversation, I couldn’t help but think about “Our Community” and how often can you be part of something where “Your Community” can have such an influence on the evolution of languages and how people communicate. So, hat’s off to “Our Community”!
August 18th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
The below is what was printed in today’s Sedo newsletter, with content assembled by Crystal Peterson of The Public Interest Registry.
With the increased focus on the importance of corporate social responsibility and green issues, businesses are reaping the rewards of maintaining a separate .org website alongside their commercial .com.
What better way to clearly differentiate charitable and social initiatives from commercial initiatives than by operating a .org to highlight a corporate foundation’s mission?
Just look at these leading companies for examples of the trend to utilize their .org for corporate foundations:
• WholeFoodsMarket.com runs the WholePlanetFoundation.org to provide “innovative assistance for entrepreneurship - including direct microcredit loans and tangible support for other community partnership projects…to create wealth and prosperity in emerging economies;” and
• Google.com operates Google.org, which “aspires to use the power of information and technology to address the global challenges of our age: climate change, poverty and emerging disease.”
“Google and Whole Foods are just two of the innovative corporations that are branding their green initiatives, philanthropic efforts and outreach activities behind the Trustmark of .org to gain more attention and traffic,” says Alexa Raad, CEO of .org, The Public Interest Registry.
Most organizations, who have a .org in conjunction with other TLDs, point their .org to their principle TLD to maximize the number of eyeballs to their core product. However, with ICANNWiki.org’s focus being “community”, many organizations miss a golden opportunity – the opportunity to enhance their brand and loyalty through highlighting their involvement with the community.
How does your business interact with the community? Utilizing a .org is the best way to highlight the community-minded aspect of your business!
August 13th, 2008
Conversation with Edmon Chung of DotAsia
by Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
The month of May proved to be a disastrous month for many living along Myanmar’s coast and in China’s Sichuan province. It was during this time we saw Relief.Asia, through the DotAsia Organisation, mobilize to help provide relief efforts to those in the disaster areas.
Today the Sichuan province was struck by a 6.0 aftershock of May’s original quake.
Because of this I wanted to talk with Edmon Chung, DotAsia’s CEO, as such efforts not only shed light on what others within the ICANN Community can do, but what the ICANN “Community” can do in providing international relief efforts.
What is “Relief.Asia”?
Relief.Asia is a platform bringing together the Internet community around Asia for relief and rebuild efforts. While the portal itself is being built into a social network site, Relief.Asia is more than an online information or discussion forum. Relief.Asia is also a platform bringing together open source and open knowledge technologies to support relief and rebuild efforts. Today, a number of technologies such as SAHANA — a web-based disaster relief management system (with features such as missing people registry, victims registry, inventory system, aid request/pledge/procurement system, etc.), DUMBO — an emergency mobile network infrastructure, as well as GPS tracking and SOS devices, are being coordinated through Relief.Asia and deployed into Myanmar and Sichuan to help relief teams in the field.
Furthermore, Relief.Asia is a platform for driving online donations. As we progress, Relief.Asia intends not only to be facilitating the deployment of these technologies but also become a platform for open development, sharing and enhancement of software, technologies and experiences on relief and rebuild efforts.
The vision for Relief.Asia is that information technology saves lives. In the wake of natural or other disasters, information technology can deliver the efficiency and effectiveness at a time when it matters most, and at a time when it could mean life or death. The previous experiences of disaster recovery had often been local and seldom shared. Technologies were often built for specific tasks on ad hoc basis. Relief.Asia hopes to provide a platform for integrating and learning from these experiences. It is also meant to be a social network which could help in driving volunteers as well as ongoing support such as psychological support which is not always well planned at the initial often chaotic rescue phase.
Relief.Asia is an Internet platform that facilitates relief response, rebuild efforts and knowledge sharing for disaster recovery by leveraging the social and technological networks of the Internet community.
Who started Relief.Asia?
DotAsia could be said to be the host and coordinator for Relief.Asia. The DotAsia team grafted together the platform in the wake of Cyclone Nargis that hit Myanmar during May 2-3, 2008. Without the collaborative efforts from organisations and institutions from around Asia, or the open technologies already being developed since the 2004 Asia Tsunami, for which the origins of Relief.Asia owes its conception, it could not have happened nevertheless. Most notably the participation and help from Charles Mok of ISOC HK, the Asia Institute of Technology (AIT), APNG (Asia Pacific Networking Group), APNIC and the Museum of World Religion (MWR) has been instrumental to the early developments of Relief.Asia.
While running a relief effort can take a major effort, why start Relief.Asia?
Relief.Asia exemplifies DotAsia’s commitment to the Asia community. It is a major and ongoing effort. As mentioned, the vision of Relief.Asia is to build a platform that can deliver open technologies and expertise when it matters most in relief and rebuild efforts. We feel that Relief.Asia is a meaningful project and the whole team at DotAsia was working overtime from our already packed launch schedule for the ongoing auctions and our commitments such as at www.think.asia, yet we all felt it was well worth our time as we were truly able to provide help, leveraging our expertise and network, to the relief efforts in Myanmar and Sichuan. Through the partnership with the Museum of World Religion (MWR), who was a .Asia Pioneer, we have been able to secure cargo space and channels into the hardest hit areas in Myanmar and were one of the very few international efforts being able to deliver relief materials in. The project while demanding was refreshing for our morale. This would be one of the first times DotAsia really made some difference for the Asia community.
I see there are several partnerships in place for Relief.Asia. Were the partnerships in place prior to the Myanmar and China natural disasters or were they established during the creation of Relief.Asia?
The origins of Relief.Asia can be traced back to the 2004 Asia Tsunami.
DotAsia at that time was still organized around volunteer efforts and toiling through the ICANN TLD process. The team at that time nevertheless still tried to facilitate and drive donations where possible. Some of the core technologies being coordinated through DotAsia to Myanmar and Sichuan also had its roots from the aftermath of the 2004 Asia Tsunami. For donation drives, we work specifically with partners when disasters hit.
While Relief.Asia quickly integrated in the wake of the Myanmar Cyclone, plans have been in place throughout the preparatory phases at DotAsia even as we were launching the .Asia registry, as can be evidenced by our own pioneer domain application for the domain “relief.asia”.
The DotAsia footprint is quite large. Given the natural disasters that occurred in both Myanmar and China, would Relief.Asia be able to handle other disasters in Bangladesh, Iran and New Zealand? If so have the relationships been developed with the various organizations in countries throughout the whole DotAsia footprint?
We certainly hope that disasters would not hit so often and so closely with each other. The Myanmar Cyclone and then the Sichuan Earthquake did present great challenge for us. Just as we had put together the platform for Myanmar, the Sichuan Earthquake hit. It was not an easy decision, but one which I believe is correct, when we made commitments to exert as much efforts to both disaster areas. Besides working with local and international charities and NGO, DotAsia will continue to utilize its relationship with its member ccTLDs and other ccTLDs in the region. For our efforts in Myanmar, we had, with the help of the .MM registry been able to better deliver materials into the affected areas. As for Sichuan, we worked with CNNIC (.CN) and the Internet Society of China. In the future, we will continue to use this model to reach out to the local communities when and if disasters hit. On top of which, we intend to strengthen our relationships with international organisations such as World Vision, Oxfam and Red Cross to leverage their footprint around the world as well. But as the case in Myanmar shows, being able to leverage local presence through our online platform can be extremely critical for relief and rebuild efforts.
Have other regionally-based TLDs created a formalized relief effort before?
I am not sure. For DotAsia, this is consistent with our mandate and vision.
For others who wish to do the same, what were the major barriers you encountered that made establishing Relief.Asia difficult? In other words, if you had to do it all over again, what would you do differently?
A major barrier is driving online donations. Both setting it up as well as driving actual donations. In setting up the system, the payment gateway and processing was troublesome and expensive. This cascades to the issue of driving donations as well because of the high overhead. As a new online platform, there will of course be an issue of trust, which we understand. Nevertheless, we are glad that there are people who believe in our cause and also we were able to drive donations through our partners as well.
For regionally-based TLDs, existing and new, do you foresee the need for such organizations to budget for, if not have a person covering a “Relief Coordinator” role?
I think it really depends on the mission and vision of a TLD.
While there are many aspects to a complete relief effort, what can Relief.Asia do well and what should one NOT expect Relief.Asia to handle?
The vision of Relief.Asia is that information technology can save lives.
Relief.Asia leverages the technology and social network over the Internet community to bring together people and open technology to contribute to relief and rebuild efforts. Also, Relief.Asia is a platform that facilitates collaboration and sharing, and is focused on supporting relief and rebuild teams with technology. We will continue to work with other organisations such as World Vision, Oxfam and Red Cross to drive donations and support their operations for more general relief work.
I have heard of many organizations that organize relief efforts around natural disasters. This is the first time I have personally heard of any organization within the general ICANN community organizing a relief effort. What might organizations within the general ICANN community bring to disaster relief that traditional organizations struggle with?
Many organisations in the ICANN community has extensive networks within their locality and industry. Often, great work can be built from these social and technological networks. I think those are the types of thing the ICANN community can really make a difference. I believe there has been different initiatives in the past as well. As I recall, Afilias and PIR also contributed efforts in the wake of the 2004 Asia Tsunami.
Anything else I may not have covered that you wish to be told?
If you feel that Relief.Asia is a meaningful project, please support us by adding a button or ribbon to your website! See http://support.relief.asia.
The children of the disaster ridden areas need your help! Relief.Asia will focus not only on relief efforts but also rebuild and through your help, we can bring better technology to these deprived children, and give them a better hope for a better future!
August 5th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
of ICANNWiki.org
In my morning read I ran across the following article that announces the debut of “Cuil”, a new search engine.
The creator of this search engine, Anna Patterson, is no stranger to search engines as she once had a search engine company that was apparently impressive enough for Google to purchase in 2004 to upgrade their own system.
After working at Google for a while, she and a couple of Google’s engineers left Google to create another search engine that is to better Google.
So I headed over to “Cuil” to check it out. I proceeded to do a VERY scientific number of searches to arrive at an authoritative opinion. (ok, ok, so I did a couple of searches…..)
True, I tried my test search of “Bill Chase”, the founder and leader of my first favorite rock band back in the 70s before Bill and most of his band, “Chase” were killed in a plane crash in 1974 – hence a somewhat obscure search. I was amazed by the content delivered and the speed was amazing!
True, Cuil has a way to go, but impressive none-the-less.
However, while doing other searches I found things don’t rank like you typically find on Google or Yahoo. This lead me to realize that what we find today, through searches on Google and Yahoo, are what has developed over time. By time I am referring to ranking based upon change, thus relevance.
So what might this mean for those organizations who have worked to ensure higher placement? How long will it take for sites, or pages, to once again rank higher? Does a new search engine mean a new way of search engine optimization? How should an “optimizer” approach Cuil differently than Google? For that matter, how should an optimizer approach Cuil differently than Yahoo? Another way of looking at this is while a site may have accrued a lot of “Google Juice” or “Yahoo Juice”, what does it take to accrue an equal amount of “Cuil Juice”?
With that said, what impact will this have on businesses who work with optimization specialists to rank high to bring in the proverbial “eye balls”? Same with those in the domaining community.
True, Yahoo and Google are not going away ANYTIME soon. OPPORTUNITY? The opportunity I see with Cuil is how often do we have a search engine “petrie dish” to examine and watch how sites initially as well as evolve in rank? How cuil is that?!!!!
July 28th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
Last month Paris was the site for all things Internet.
June 21-26 ICANN held its 32nd International meeting. I am not saying that fits my claim of “All things Internet” because two other conferences were being held just prior to ICANN’s conference. The other two conferences were the EGENI conference on the 20th and the Domainer Meeting on the 19th and the 20th. All three conferences were held at the same venue.
As we all know, the goal of ICANN meetings is to focus on utilizing input for purposes of the development of policy regarding the Internet. The Domainer Meeting focused on the domaining industry with sessions on the industry followed by an auction. The EGENI conference covered issues regarding the future of the internet, what users want and the impact of new TLDs, especially what they may be able to do from a cultural and heritage perspective.
While ICANN continued to have their “standards” feel, and the Domainer Meeting continued with the Domainer entrepreneurial spirit, the EGENI conference viewed more into Internet Governance from the public perspective. The EGENI conference also provided perspective from the needs of the European Union in the overall global discussion.
From ICANNWiki’s perspective, this is a dream only because everyone that makes up the ICANNWiki “community” was under one roof. What I especially liked was members from the three groups were talking – TOGETHER! While members of the EGENI conference actively take part in the various ICANN conferences, there are members from the Domainer community that are going to take on a greater role by actively participating on various ICANN committees. I have seen and heard others talk about respective groups bickering over other groups. So getting ALL voices to the table is a good thing.
In all this was a very successful venue for all conferences. While the EGENI conference was more regionally and IGF focused, the conference pulled in around 100 people, the Domainer Meeting, more European-centric, attracted over 300 people. As for the ICANN meeting, this was ICANN’s largest meeting with approximately 1,500 in attendance.
The three things I pulled from ICANN’s conference were:
1). Additional TLDs are on the way. The process is being defined and applications, at the time of this conference, should start being accepted by 2nd quarter, 2009. Yes, this may slip, but the overall feel is this will happen. The main concern voiced by conference attendees rested with security.
2). IDNs continue to progress and will become a reality. Progress is being made.
3). Reaching out to businesses. ICANN’s new effort is to reach out to the business community. Reaching out not only ensures the voices of the business community are heard, it allows the business community to hear what is coming, how they will be impacted and why changes are important. The item at the top of my mind is to help businesses understand the need for converting from IPv4 to IPv6.
As for the EGENI conference the main things I took away from this conference were:
1). As the European Union continues to develop, their needs can differ from those of the US as the EU has a common interest and culture difference from the US; so it is important to ensure the EU is heard. The EU has an initiative known as “E2010” where by the year 2010 education and healthcare will be able to use the Internet to enhance reaching out to the public. With this come challenges such as the need for the protection of:
* Children
* Personal data
* Data protection
2). The various ISOCs (Internet Societies) provide a way for the public to provide their input; with the ISOCs providing input to the political level. In other words, the political level is wanting to get more involved in raising the EU’s concerns regarding Internet development.
3). What do you do with a society that utilizes their mobile phones to a greater extent than people in the US? What about the need to reach out to various devices on the net that are not PC-based; hence a pressing need for migration for IPv4 to IPv6.
4). New TLDs will be coming out with the new TLDs being able to provide a strong focus on culture, heritage, and economic development for the respective TLD regions, whether a specific TLD covers a city, the region of a country, or a region that encompasses multiple countries due to a common economic region.
You can learn more about the EGENI conference by viewing the session notes.
So to wrap up this post, again I get back to how great it was to see the confluence of people from the various groups (ICANN policy/standards, Internet governance, Domainer) in one place. I hope this confluence continues as “continued” dialogue is healthy and committee participation from the various groups is the best way in moving forward. Perhaps someday “confluence” will be replaced with “convergence”. In the mean time, as mentioned earlier, “Getting ALL voices to the table is a good thing.”
July 10th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
ICANNWiki.org
Last August I blogged about “.asia, A Social Networking Goldmine”. While the gist of the post centered around the new .asia TLD (its value with the advent of IDNs and how it can foster community) the underlying theme has been, and continues to be for me the value of what such regionally focused TLDs can bring to the “community”.
In previous posts also I discussed the value IDNs bring not only from the perspective of DotAsia, but from the perspective of India. To be specific, “What IDNs Mean to DotAsia: A Conversation with Edmon Chung of DotAsia” and “IDNs and India: A Conversation with Rajesh Aggarwal of NIXI”.
Again, the underlying theme being that of “Community”.
Recently we were able to witness the power of what such a regionally-based TLD, such as the DotAsia organization can accomplish when trying to support the community.
May 3, 2008 a cyclone hit Myanmar. At the time of this writing 78,000 are dead with 56,000 still missing.
May 12, 2008, an earthquake hit China’s Sichuan province. At the time of this writing 40,000 are dead with 32,000 still missing.
Shortly after the cyclone hit Myanmar and before the quake hit in China, Edmon Chung and his organization, DotAsia lead the charge of forming “Relief.Asia”. The Relief.Asia website, “… was deployed as a tool and platform to drive awareness and community contribution towards the rebuilding of nature-savaged regions such as Myanmar (also known as Burma) and Sichuan, through the application of Information Technology. Other organizations that jumped in to form a working, cohesive partnership include Internet Society Hong Kong (ISOC HK), The Professional Commons, Asia Pacific Networking Group (APNG), intERLab of Asian Institute of Technology, Myanmar Egress, APNIC, and Museum of World Religions, amongst others.”
Through the relationships developed among the various partners, Relief.Asia was able to secure one of the first planes into Myanmar with relief supplies.
As we have seen with Myanmar, politically speaking Myanmar and the US do not have the best of relationships, thus making it difficult for the US to provide relief supplies to Myanmar. Where governments fail in this regard it helps when organizations have relationships within governments, but are not part of a government agency themselves. With that said, DotAsia is not a governmental, or political organization. However, with the establishment of the .asia TLD they have relationships with members of a country’s respective government. I can’t say such relationships helped with Myanmar or Sichuan, but I do know progress towards relief efforts were made due to the relationships established with the various partners of Relief.Asia.
With the development and deployment of regionally-based TLDs on the horizon, I can only wonder if the world has a new avenue for marshalling resources through partnerships to aid in geographically-based relief efforts.
May 21st, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
In the ICANN “community” we understand the concept of having a web presence on the Internet through the use of domain names, or URLs. Each domain name, or URL resolves to a single, unique number. That number allows us to travel somewhere on the net.
While people are familiar with using domain names as “identity” for corporations, people have also started using domain names as their “identity” or brand, by bringing people to their personal website, or using their personal domain name as a means for providing an e-mail address.
With that said, we are used to domain names and we understand how domain names can associate with brand or identity. Now, let’s take this a step further. Let’s take the same basic concept and wrap it into one’s OWN personal identity. When we go to sites on the web do we use our domain names to long in? No. That’s because we use domain names to reach a destination, not use once we have arrived at our destination. If the domain name is about us, we use the domain name to bring people to learn about us. Or shall I say the royal “Me“?
However, what about the concept of using an identifier, like a domain name that resolves to a number FAR longer, thus more secure than a simple IP address, an address that represents you when you go to various sites around the network?
That is what OpenID is all about. You obtain your own OpenID, or multiple OpenIDs and use them at OpenID enabled sites. This way once you establish your OpenID, you don’t have to worry about creating username/password accounts on the various systems that are already OpenID enabled. So once you use a traditional domain name to arrive at your destination on the net, you use your OpenID to validate with that destination who YOU are. Click here to understand the process of verifying you are who you say you are.
If OpenID is new to you and you are pondering who has enabled OpenID when accepting visitors from the Internet, know that many sites have, and are beginning to support OpenID. Among those are Yahoo, AOL, Plaxo, Microsoft, IBM, Sun, the BBC and France’s Orange Telecom. So, yes, OpenID is hear to stay. ICANNWiki.org has been a long time supporter and early adoptor of OpenID.
Ok, you may say this gets me into sites, “Cool!” I can manage my own identity? “Way Cool!” I don’t have to keep track of usernames and passwords for each site I go to? (*faint*) But what about applications? Are there applications, not sites, but actual applications that run on OpenID? Yes, as a matter of fact. Since February, when I added basic structure to the wiki I added applications that ONLY accept OpenID.
You may have noticed areas where simple claims can be made with people either agreeing or disagreeing with the claim. This is a great way for people to make a short statement about something in the community and gain a quick pulse on what people may be thinking. Some examples as found on ICANNWiki.org include:
Network Solutions’ move to shut down access to a site that was about to rally support for banning the Koran in Holland was the correct move; especially with cartoons of the Profit in several European newspapers were met with outrage in 2006. Results? YES = 1, NO = 5.
The best way for me to develop my domain name is to develop a business plan for that domain name. Results? YES = 3, NO = 2
If OpenID is a way for me to manage my identity, what about security? Inames is the most secure form of the OpenID movement. With inames, the number generated for you is your number FOREVER. It can never be transferred or appended.
So if you have not obtained your OpenID yet, I encourage you to do so so that you can participate more fully with, and get more from the wiki. NeuStar, together with 1id are allowing you to pick up your ICANNWiki community OpenID iname by going here or obtaining your own personal iname by going here.
Have fun and welcome to the world of OpenID!
April 29th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
While leaving my hotel the other day I happened to glance at the USA Today newspaper. At the bottom of the front page was a story titled, “ChinaUSA in Internet users vaults past ”. As the story points out, the number of Chinese on the Internet hit more than 220 million by February, compared to 216 US Internet users at the end of 2007.
While US-based internet usage for 2007 had grown 53% over the following year to reach the 216 million mark, it should be noted that of the US’s 304 million people, 71% use the Internet today. China, on the other hand with it’s higher figure and strong growth rate (233 million at the end of March vs 220 million in January), only 17% of its 1.3 billion population uses the Internet. As you can see China has a LONG way to go before starting to reach a point of saturation.
Being that I was at a conference all day whose focus was on the Domaining industry, I was not able to see how much attention this story received on any of the evening news stations. I am pleased, however, that this story was not buried within the newspaper as this is a very significant story.
Last February I blogged on the concept of IDNs and the perception of IDNs being on ICANN’s fast track. So based on the fact that China has been forging ahead with the potential of “Their Own Internet” and seeing that the number of users of the Internet has surpassed that of the US is rather significant to me.
While the story came and went on the pages of USA Today, I can’t help but think of the following aspects of this milestone:
1). How distinct is China’s Internet over the Internet you and I use today and what impact might varying internets have on each other? (I am referring to the root server system.)
2). What impact will this have on the overall IDN conversation? Is China doing what works for their users and how might this impact the way a Chinese-based Internet affects application development (as highlighted in my posting on “Practical Implications Regarding ICANN’s IDN TLD Evaluation Deployment in the Root Zone”), allowing for a culturally good Internet experience as well as ICANN’s process for IDN script development?
So while China is shooting beyond the US regarding number of users on the Internet, it will be interesting to watch other countries do the same, especially when IDNs are rolling out. It will also be interesting to see how the Internet “industry”, as we know it today, may shift. It will also be interesting to see how, if any, instances or segments of the Internet may grow and operate without following any of the established policies and agreements established through ICANN, as may be the case with China.
April 23rd, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
In the March 28 issue of the New York Times there was an article titled, “Domain-Name Complaints Rise To a High Over Cybersquatting”. The story pointed out that complaints of cybersquatting were up to 2,156 in 2007; an increase of 18%.
To me, that was a large figure. However, it left me with the question of does that figure represent the whole industry or just WIPO? To confirm this I contacted WIPO to learn that the 2,156 figure quoted in the article represents the complaints being handled only by WIPO. So this tells me the number is actually higher.
When looking at ICANN’s UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) there is a list of “Approved Dispute-Resolution Service Providers”. In my conversation with WIPO I learned that of the approved dispute-resolution service providers, WIPO handles about 50% - 60% of the cases being disputed. So that means of the 2,156 complaints being handled in 2007, the real number of UDRP cases is slightly less than double, or around 4,000 complaints in 2007 alone! What this means is the approximate 4,000 complaints are the complaints being handled by ICANN’s “Approved Dispute-Resolution Service Providers”. Then we need to think about other complaints that may not be going through any of ICANN’s service providers. Anyway, for me, the number is high and signifies this is a definite issue.
This also lets me know, however, that procedures DO exist to handle such complaints; and such procedures are being exercised.
In earlier posts (“Skipping Through the Senate Bill 2661 Mine Field” and “The Opportunity Surrounding Senate Bill 2661”) I discussed, or questioned the need for the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act of 2008 (APCPA), introduced by Senator Snowe, other wise known as S. 2661. The bill’s title leads one to see that the bill’s title indicates the bill is geared around anti-phishing. I am all for this. In fact I received a phishing e-mail today. However, I objected, or more accurately, could not find the need to include a rather large section that addressed domain names. To me the bill feels like a fox in sheep’s clothing as the bill’s name suggests a bill against anti-phishing. Instead the bill not only discusses anti-phishing but seems to be based around the use, or misuse of domain names. What I objected to most was what I consider to be the vaguely-worded definition of what constitutes abuse. To be specific:
Section 3. Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices, (b), (2), (H).
…acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity…
So I started researching and found current procedures and laws in place today that rely on similar verbiage.
The Lanham act first enacted in 1947, says:
Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter 1, 1051, Section A-3-D.
“…to the best of the verifier’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, except that, in the case of every application claiming concurrent use…”
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in 2000 (ACPA) amended the Lanham Act by adding Section 43(d). The amended language includes the following verbiage:
Section 3002, (a), (d)(1), (ii), (I)
“in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;”
ICANN’s UDRP includes:
Section 4, “a”, (i)
“your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights…”
I see the term, “confusingly similar” has been used over the decades when referring to potential trademark infringement. So I humbly eat crow. Hmmmmm…. (Add a little habanero sauce and not bad! But I digress….)
When looking at the various bills and procedures I find the following:
UDRP: If awarded to the complainant, the domain name(s) in question are transferred to the complainant. No other fines are incurred.
With the revised Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) the fines are a minimum of $1,000 with a maximum fine of $100,000.
With the Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act (or S. 2661) the fines are $250 per violation with a maximum of $2,000,000. The courts would have the discretion to increase the maximum to $6,000,000.
So if I am a person who finds someone with a domain name that is “confusingly similar” to my trademarked name, I can go through the UDRP process, or some other non-ICANN approved UDRP process to have the domain name handed over to me. Once I have the domain name can I then take the former domain owner to court under the ACPA for purposes of cybersquatting to get damages up to $100,000? Once awarded my $100,000, could I then take the same former domain owner to court again under phishing abuse to go after another $2,000,000? Or would the ACPA trump the APCPA, or vise-versa?
This all seems rather inefficient and uncoordinated to me.
Through this process I have also been hearing CADNA (The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse). While I see they are all against cybersquattting, domain tasting and domain kiting, (which I am too) CADNA states its approach as follows:
“CADNA will work to educate the public, lobby the relevant agencies of jurisdiction in the United States government, and actively communicate with members of Congress. Through these activities CADNA aims to effectively exert pressure on ICANN, propose draft legislation to increase the statutory damages set forth in the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to take decisive action on abuses by domain name registrars and registrants, and work with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to introduce an international anti-cybersquatting treaty.”
Hmmmmmmm…. So while I see a button on CADNA’s home page supporting Snowe’s Anti-Phishing Consumer Protection Act (S. 2661), why are we not seeing a similar button regarding efforts on amending Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or ACPA? When I look at what all CADNA stands for and I read Snowe’s S. 2661, I see what CADNA is all about in S. 2661. Personally I believe it is clever that CADNA’s charter is basically spelled out in a single Federal bill.
So while cybersquatting complaints are up, while there are several avenues for complainants to pursue their case, of which most are won by the complainant, and while there is a law in place for the complainant to recover any damages, I still feel S. 2661 is a fox in sheep’s clothing.
Call a bill what the bill is about! If we need an anti-phishing bill (ooops, received another e-mail!) then let’s have a bill that addresses anti-phishing. If we need to have damages increased due to cybersquatting, then let’s amend the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) to reflect the increase in damages that can be collected. It has been done once with the ACPA amending the Lanham Act so you know it can be done again. As mentioned in previous posts, I personally do not own any domain names so can not be classified as a “Domainer” – in the best or worst sense of the word. I do, however know “Domainers” who work to ensure their domain names are not infringing upon any trademarks. I know Domainers who are working to develop their domains as unique business units. I do know the Executive Director of the Internet Commerce Association who is working to ensure a code of ethics among domainers and, through experience, have noticed first hand his even-keel approach.
Bottom line? Revise S. 2661 to focus on what the bill’s title indicates; that dealing with phishing. For issues regarding domain names, continue working through established UDRP processes and, if necessary, make the appropriate modifications to the current ACPA. The number of UDRP cases handled by WIPO in 2007 alone indicated procedures are in place and being exercised.
If someone can tell me why we need another bill, such as 2661, that also covers issues regarding domain name dispute resolution when we already have established UDRP procedures as well as the ACPA, please reply to this post as I am interested in understanding the need.
April 14th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
After submitting my last post regarding Senate bill 2661 (S. 2661), I couldn’t help but feel the message was not complete. There was another element that remained to be explored.
While the bill, as is, is definitely in its infancy and, if it survives, will continue through the process with many revisions made along the way. As the bill stands today I still feel it is a bad bill and leaves room wide open for misinterpretation, taking advantage of others by the “bad seeds†of the world and money wasted on MANY lawsuits ahead.
So knowing that there still is a long road ahead, something continued to bug me about my last post. While sipping an iced-tea in one of Portland’s MANY local coffee shops, it hit me.
“OPPORTUNITY!â€
There is no doubt that people and businesses are being harmed through phishing scams. Such scams are something we all hate. However, when you read the Anti-Phishing Working Group’s December 2007 report and the Brandjacking Winter 2007 report , you will find that the phishing community is alive and active. Based on such reports I can see the basis for the bill.
However, labeling an entire community by the actions of a small few is wrong. That’s like saying all Americans are loud and arrogant. Hmmmmm….. Perhaps that was a bad example, but I think you understand what I mean.
What “opportunity†do I see with this bill? As mentioned, there is no doubt that phishing is a problem and, just like domain tasting, needs to end. However the opportunity I see is this is a chance for various organizations to come together to work “together†on providing input to this bill. In my mind I would like to see Congress work with the following consortium:
The Internet Commerce Association, or ICA.
ICANN
Registrars
Registries
The ICA clearly needs to be present as this organization provides the voice for the Domainer community.
ICANN needs to be present as it is their policies that affect the Internet community on a global basis. ICANN is currently working in conjunction with other organizations to build in the policy to squelch domain tasting.
Registrars are the interface between the registries and the Domainer community.
Registries maintain the integrity of their respective TLDs, gTLDs or ccTLDs, live by the policies developed by ICANN and work with the Domainer/registrar community.
I feel it is necessary for ALL groups to be at the table to help provide input into the crafting of this bill.
If Senate bill 2661 never makes it to a vote, or is voted down, other bills will emerge.
So while organizations are busy working in their own respective communities, the “opportunity†is there for all parties to come to the “SAME†table, roll up their sleeves and provide constructive input. This also applies to Senator Snowe’s office. It also behooves members of their respective communities to provide their respective organizations with constructive input instead of expressing frustration or simply complaining. So, if a bill is to come about, and Senate bill 2661 may be that bill, the opportunity is there to educate each other and work together to craft a good bill.
And if people are thinking about an organization needing to make the first move, let me move us all beyond that barrier by saying ICANNWiki.org, this neutral organization for the overall ICANN “communityâ€, based in a Portland State University facility, will be more than happy to provide the stage, both physically as well as virtually, for this conversation or “opportunity†to occur.
March 17th, 2008
Previous Posts