Displaying posts tagged under "icann"
Objectors were upset with single registrant application for .hotels.
An International Chamber of Commerce panelist has denied two community objections filed against .hotels applicant Booking.com.
The cases were filed by Hotel Consumer Protection Coalition and HOTREC, Hotels, Restaurants & Cafés in Europe, and the cases were consolidated.
Although there were 7 applications for the .hotel (singular) top level domain, it seems that the groups were concerned about Booking.com’s .hotels (plural) application because it proposes to make the domain a single registrant TLD. Some objections were filed against other variations of hotel strings, but not most of the typical applications. Booking.com wants to restrict third parties from registering second level domains under it, and the groups are concerned that Booking.com will register domains including hotel trademarks (e.g. hyatt.hotels) at the detriment of the hotel chains.
Panelist Jennifer Kirby determined that the “hotel community” is a clearly delineated community, and that both objectors have standing to object.
But the objectors failed to prove material detriment to their community as a result of Booking.com getting the contract to run .hotels. Kirby wrote that the objectors did not show how not being able to register a .hotels domain would hurt their businesses:
Having said this, I agree with the Objector that the Applicant’s proposal to operate .HOTELS” as a closed gTLD indicates that it intends to act in accordance with its own interests, not those of the hotel community. But the Objector’s members and other members of the hotel community already have many avenues through the DNS to have a presence on the Internet – avenues the Objector’s members and many others in the hotel community already exploit. So while the Objector’s members and others in the hotel community might want to register domain names in “.HOTELS” if it is delegated, it is not clear what the marginal benefit of doing this would be worth to them, if anything. The Objector has simply put on no evidence of the nature or extent of any concrete or economic damage to the hotel community that would result from the Applicant’s operating “.HOTELS” as a closed gTLD.
Famous Four questions panelists decision in .sport community objection.
In case you haven’t heard yet, SportAccord won a community objection against Famous Four Media’s application for the .sport top level domain name.
It was a surprising decision, as it’s pretty hard to argue that “sport” is a clearly delineated community. I personally don’t know anyone who has never participated in a sport or watched a sport. It seems like anyone who breathes is a member of this “community”.
Famous Four issued a statement this morning finding fault in panelist Dr. Guido Tawil’s decision. You can read the full comment here (pdf).
The company says that SportAccord used the community objection process to “game” the system:
The decision strikes right at the heart of the concept of freedom of expression, and significantly erodes transparency and predictability in the gTLD programme. In particular, it confirms the
concerns expressed by the NCUC at the time of the formulation of the ICANN Final Report in 2007
and the subsequent rules in the Applicant Guidebook, that the community objection process could
be hijacked by competing applicants….
…Famous Four Media is disappointed that the Panellist fails entirely to take into account that the
objector is a competing applicant merely trying to game the system, and avoid the more rigid
scrutiny of the Community Priority Evaluation process.
Famous Four concludes its statement by saying it will “pursue rigorously all available legal avenues available to it to have the decision independently reviewed by ICANN and/or others as the case may be, and reversed.”
It doesn’t appear that ICANN’s request for reconsideration process will be a successful avenue. So far ICANN has rebuffed all such requests.
The following is a satirical response to news that SportAccord won a community objection against the .sport top level domain name.
An International Chamber of Commerce panelist has upheld a community objection brought by BreatheAccord against dotBreathe LLC’s top level domain name application for .breathe.
The decision by panelist Aru Kiddinme means that BreatheAccord, the only other applicant for .breathe, will now have a clear path to delegation for the domain name.
Panelist Kiddinme first determined that the breathe community is clearly delineated.
“It is clear to me that the community is easily defined,” he wrote. “The formal boundaries of the community are defined by only those human beings who have ever breathed a breath on the planet Earth.”
BreatheAccord argued that, through the various associations that are in its membership, it represents the approximately 7 billion living creatures who have ever breathed.
Kiddinme agreed that “although the objector might not represent all people who have ever breathed, it acts for a preponderant part of such community of human beings.”
“In fact, it would be almost impossible for an institution to represent any community as a whole,” Kiddinme wrote. “If such was the requirement, there would be no reason to provide for the possibility of community objections.”
BreatheAccord had collected 12,982 e-signatures on Change.org from people in the breathing community who were opposed to dotBreathe, LLC getting the .breathe domain name.
dotBreathe, LLC argued that the “expressions of opposition from the Objector are small compared to the large composition of the alleged community of breathers of seven billion people”.
But the panelist agreed with BreatheAccord that the signatures, along with letters of objection by four oxygen companies, represented substantial opposition to the TLD application.
Kiddinme also determined that BreatheAccord was clearly targeting the community members with its TLD. dotBreathe, LLC responded that it believes domain names should be open for all to register and not limited to certain segments of the breathing community.
On the issue of likelihood of material detriment to the community, BreatheAccord calculated the damages at $1,000 per community member, or approximately 7 trillion dollars.
Panelist Kiddinme determined that, while BreatheAccord’s 7 trillion estimate might be a tad high, “it will certainly lead to trillions in economic damage and prevent the people who breathe from functioning in the way intended.”
Kiddinme said .breathe being allocated to the applicant is likely to lead to war, disease, and famine. And cybersquatting.
Under the United States Department of Commerce’s agreement with ICANN, the Affirmation of Commitments, ICANN must demonstrate that the new gTLD program contributes, in part, to consumer trust. Delegating “.breathe” to an unaccountable registry operator, which lends a false sense of official sanction to the .breathe domain name space, would inevitably erode consumer trust by misleading individuals through unofficial content.
The panelist was apparently also swayed by two GAC members posing questions about the domain name.
ICANN promotes senior director to replace Chief Security Officer role.Most companies have CXOs. ICANN is expanding that to CXXXOs.
The non-profit announced today that it has promoted John Crain to be the Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer. That’s a new title for the Chief Security Officer role, which is being vacated by Jeff Moss at the end of the year. Crain was previously a senior director with the same lengthy title.
Why the extra words in the title? It has to do with ICANN’s core mission of security and stability for the DNS. Some parties are questioning ICANN’s commitment to security and stability as it pushes new top level domain names out the door. I guess this is a clever way to say that ICANN is serious about it. ICANN also announced the formation of a new Security, Stability and Resiliency Executive Committee, led by Chief Executive Officer Fadi Chehadé.
Personally, I’d rather they split this into a few positions. Just because I’d like someone to be called the Chief Resiliency Officer.
Panelist questions why complainant waited 13 years to file a domain name dispute.
A National Arbitration Forum panel has dismissed a UDRP case, and it seems that the main reason was that the case was brought 13 years after the domain name was registered.
The case was brought by Galaxy Catering, Inc., aka Big Texan Steak Ranch over the domain name TheBigTexan.com. The respondent registered the domain name in 2000, and panelist Nathalie Dreyfus questioned why, if it was such as big deal, did the complainant wait so long to file its complaint?
Dreyfus ruled that Galaxy Catering proved the first element of the policy. But then Dreyfus touched on the doctrine of laches issue under the heading “Laches”. Although Dreyfus’ explanation touches on some of the elements of UDRP, it’s focused squarely on the long delay in bringing the case.
The following paragraph is worth publishing in its entirety:
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the presumption in favor of Complainant upon satisfaction of the first element of the Policy can be rebutted since the domain name at issue does not appear to have caused any business disruption or confusion suffered by Complainant and by the fact of laches on the part of Complainant. It appears that Complainant would have taken action in a more timely fashion had the disputed domain name been seriously disruptive. In addition, if the Panel takes note that the restaurant “The Big Texan” seems to have been renowned at least in Texas since the years 2010, the data provided by Complainant doesn’t confirm that the said restaurant and the related trademarks were known when the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in 2000. In addition, Complainant has not justified in its Complaint why it has waited 13 years to file a UDRP complaint against the disputed domain name. Last, the Panel has duly noted that Complainant alleges that Respondent orally declared that he doesn’t accept offers less than $1000. This financial offer is unfortunately not backed by any written evidence and the Panel wonders whether such request is really inappropriate when occurring 13 years after the registration of the disputed domain name.