# Duplicitous ICANN Working Group Jeopardizes Domain Owners’ Rights



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 12, 2021)

A duplicitous ICANN Working Group has issued a report that is open for public comments that would have *severe negative consequences for domain name owners*.  In particular, it would tilt the playing field in a domain name dispute (i.e. a UDRP or the URS) involving IGOs (intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations) in such a manner that it would be* nearly impossible for domain owners to have their dispute decided on the merits by the courts*. This would encourage *consequence-free reverse domain name hijacking*. Rather than accept the findings and recommendations of the prior working group, which reached a consensus, this new working group instead had tunnel vision and focused instead on ramming through an alternative recommendation (involving arbitration) for which there was an express consensus against in the prior working group!

The current deadline for comments (unless extended) is *October 24, 2021*.

Read more about this dangerous report and what you can do to stop its recommendations in my blog post at:

https://freespeech.com/2021/10/12/duplicitous-icann-working-group-jeopardizes-domain-owners-rights/


----------



## MapleDots__ (Oct 12, 2021)

Thank goodness for CDRP


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 12, 2021)

The folks at WIPO have been trying very hard to get ccTLDs like .ca to instead use the UDRP. So, don't assume the CDRP will last forever....




			
				MapleDots said:
			
		

> Thank goodness for CDRP


----------



## MapleDots__ (Oct 12, 2021)

GeorgeK said:
			
		

> The folks at WIPO have been trying very hard to get ccTLDs like .ca to instead use the UDRP. So, don't assume the CDRP will last forever....





Yikes   


[notify]richard.schreier[/notify] or [notify]FM[/notify] what are the chances of that happening?



I am moving this to the CIRA section because this relates to .ca as well.


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 13, 2021)

You can see various announcements at:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/new/

for example, with .ac, .io, and .sh, they replaced the "AND" with the "OR" in the 3-prong UDRP test, further diminishing domain name owner's rights:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/new/acioshudrpvariant.html

If you invested in a .com, and a new trademark owner came along (after you registered the .com), you'd have a safe harbour, because they could never prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith. You're safe because you don't have to worry about the "used in bad faith" part of the test.

Had you invested in the corresponding .io, with the same registration date as the .com, and that same TM owner went after your domain, you would be at much greater risk. You could no longer simply argue "I registered the domain name before their TM. End of story.". Instead, they'll attack your "use" of the domain name. And asking "too high a price" for that domain name might be considered "bad faith" by many panelists. Not using the domain name at all ("passive holding") might be considered "bad faith", if you can't rely on the safe harbour of the domain predating the TM.

The more they can get the "AND" test changed to "OR", the more disputes they can deliver for the benefit of complainants, providers and panelists' benefit.


----------



## FM__ (Oct 13, 2021)

MapleDots said:
			
		

> Yikes
> 
> 
> [notify]richard.schreier[/notify] or [notify]FM[/notify] what are the chances of that happening?
> ...



I don't see anything like this happening any time soon and wouldn't really see a reason for CIRA to adopt the UDRP. So far I'm not aware of this being discussed by the CIRA board either and it's not really up to WIPO. I'm, however not actively following all of the discussions of the ccNSO at ICANN, where this would be most likely discussed, so it wouldn't hurt to ask CIRA or see what [notify]richard.schreier[/notify] can share.


----------



## Eby__ (Oct 13, 2021)

GeorgeK said:
			
		

> The folks at WIPO have been trying very hard to get ccTLDs like .ca to instead use the UDRP. So, don't assume the CDRP will last forever....



I hope not. But I understand the remote possibility. 

However, CIRA and others should raise their concern and discontent of any such move. If not it would like removing the Police force from each jurisdiction and calling upon the STF to handle family disputes.


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 13, 2021)

There are some unrepresentative extremists in these working groups, who don't have any respect for property rights. Case in point:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/2021-February/000008.html



> now the point I want to make is that we need to push the whole model in a very different way, it does not mean if you have a .com or .org like what happened to Red Cross and so many examples we can cite. I think the need to make a different move altogether, meaning that we should push  any company formally registered in a country to adopt and go the country code name since Govt knows the validity of a company, their should be no open box to just buy a .com etc unless it is a company registered internationally. And also on WIPO list. I am not cutting loose the fact that those already owning a .com .org etc., should be suffering a consequential issue but we need to present a solid case for those to happen and to also ensure GAC is happier and that makes a good business model case and the reason the ccNSO was created and many countries are still fighting to make this work, reason is simple the cost of a country level code depends has a cost variance from country to country so the cheapest is a .com when we are looking to have a site.
> ...
> I know my colleagues will most likely not necessarily like what am proposing but when things go south , a framework of mind change and model is required to change. For example a company which is international can have a .com if they prove that they are international , look at ebay for example there is .com which is mostly the American business and then eBay Also has the country level code registered. Why can’t Amazon have an umbrella that is.com but business done or represented in America should be .US for example.



He wanted to strip folks of their .com domains, unless they can prove they are international businesses, and shift folks to ccTLDs! 

Folks like that are allowed to participate, but I'm forever unfairly banished from participating in working groups to counter their dangerous ideas.


----------



## richard.schreier__ (Oct 13, 2021)

The CDRP is unique to .CA. There are no discussions within CIRA to consider adopting the UDRP as a replacement to the CDRP. I would also note that WIPO is not a .CA dispute resolution provider.


----------



## Eby__ (Oct 13, 2021)

richard.schreier said:
			
		

> The CDRP is unique to .CA. There are no discussions within CIRA to consider adopting the UDRP as a replacement to the CDRP. I would also note that WIPO is not a .CA dispute resolution provider.



Great to have that assurance repeated Richard. Thanks again


----------



## rlm__ (Oct 13, 2021)

GeorgeK said:
			
		

> The current deadline for comments (unless extended) is October 24, 2021.



Of course you're 100% right and we appreciate those of you who take the time and effort to stay informed on this kind of B.S. going on.

Unfortunately, the average person cannot keep up with this kind of stuff.  And we'd love to fight back, but just need someone like you or ICA or whatever to walk us through this.  Ideally there would just be some sort of petition we could all sign.  In this case, it appears I'd have to create an ICANN account to leave feedback on this proposal?  I don't mind doing that either, but if you could provide an appropriate response that we can cut-and-paste, that would sure go a long way to getting a lot more people to leave feedback!

Thanks!


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 13, 2021)

ICANN deliberately redid its public comment systems, to make it harder to comment, see:

https://domainnamewire.com/2021/09/01/icann-improves-public-comment-system/

with the back story of:

https://domainnamewire.com/2020/02/19/verisign-tries-to-discredit-icann-commenting-period-process/

These are complex issues, so they can't be summarized in a couple of pages (that's why being involved in the actual working group is so important, and why opponents of domain name registrants' rights want me out of those working groups). Copy/paste submissions are discouraged, as they routinely ignore them.

That's why I'm encouraging people to demand more time, so they can educate themselves on the implications (as I've noted on Twitter).

Comment deadline is less than 2 weeks away, and ICA hasn't posted a thing about this, either, on their blog, Twitter, etc. I'm not an ICA member, so have no insight as to why they've not done so.


----------



## Eby__ (Oct 13, 2021)

rlm said:
			
		

> I don't mind doing that either, but if you could provide an appropriate response that we can cut-and-paste, that would sure go a long way to getting a lot more people to leave feedback!



I was just going to ask too. But was a bit shy. Glad you asked. Thanks [notify]rlm[/notify]


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 14, 2021)

I made a new blog post today, to respond to the GAC and IGOs which have been overstating the nature of the IGO protections:

https://freespeech.com/2021/10/14/an-open-letter-to-the-icann-board-regarding-igo-protections/


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 20, 2021)

Brand new article doing some deep analysis of participation levels of the working group, with some help from Kevin Ohashi of ReviewSignal.com:

https://freespeech.com/2021/10/20/u...group-participation-harms-domain-name-owners/

I believe this is the first time anyone has ever reviewed participation levels in a working group by counting words per participant across all transcripts.


----------



## FM__ (Oct 23, 2021)

GeorgeK said:
			
		

> Brand new article doing some deep analysis of participation levels of the working group, with some help from Kevin Ohashi of ReviewSignal.com:



Kevin is a great and smart guy, a cool idea for this.


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Oct 24, 2021)

Today's the last day to submit comments (Sunday October 24, 2021 at 23:59 UTC time). I finished mine last night:

https://freespeech.com/2021/10/23/f...o-icann-to-protect-domain-name-owners-rights/


----------



## GeorgeK__ (Mar 6, 2022)

The ICANN working group just published a draft final report to their mailing list that doesn't reflect the public comments, see:

https://freespeech.com/2022/03/06/s...mple-on-domain-name-registrants-legal-rights/

for my discussion. This is a complete sham, one that will trample over the legal rights of domain name registrants.


----------

