Institute for Internet Policy & Law @ Beijing Normal University

IIPL/CDNUA has made substantive contribution to the ICANN policy making, although it is not easy to penetrate the exclusive west-centric club in eco-system of civil society. Although civil society from the South often feels that their voice are bounced by the sound of silence, they are still engaged and talking.

Here are the aggregation of the comments made to a variety of policy issues.

1. New gTLDs: Public Interest Commitments & Dispute Resolution Policy (04/13)

Following to our call on March 11, I made further research on PICs. It seems comment period on this PICs mechanism generally has expired by
February 26 and PICs mechanism has been put into implementation already. I cannot seem any chance to change or improve it, at least in
this round. So it does not make much sense to draft a statement on this.

What I discovered interestingly is that all new gTLD applicants should submit their PICs by March 5.

There are 3 sections in the PICs.

Section 1 states that the new registry operator will only use registrars that have signed the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (currently under negotiation).

Section 2 is for applicants to indicate which parts of their applications they will incorporate into their registry agreements as binding ommitments.

Section 3 is for applicants to identify additional commitments that are not part of their applications but which the applicants intend to incorporate as binding commitment into their registry agreements.

If an applicant did not submit its PICs, only Section 1 applied to its base agreement by default. To my memory, when RALOs considered those objection statements, some applicants urgently provided their PICs on either Section 2 or both Section 2 and 3 to appeal to RALOs’ support.
But those so-called commitments, if later than March 5, may only be rhetoric to at-large but not “valid” PICs to ICANN.

The current status is ICANN allows the public to comments on the PICs that have already been submitted by March 16. So we could also look at
any specific applications and consider whether or not to comment on their sufficiency and effectiveness of securing public interest.

PIC DRP, which modeled on the PDDRP for trademarks, is a flawed system, in which ICANN struggled between its dual roles as the TLD regulator and at the meantime the contractual party with the TLD operators. Although, understandably, ICANN has no regulatory authority except through the contractual relationship with TLD operators, it is not a fix to mix both rules up. As a contractual party, ICANN should enforce the contract without relying the third party’s complaint. As a regulator, ICANN should be able to judge whether a breach of commitment occurs without outsourcing the assessment to a DRP proceeding, which is both costly and with high bars. We can only hope that the compliance against new gTLDs’ PIC would not be diluted by this new DRP proceedings.

2. New gTLDs: Strawman Solution (04/13)

I had expressed concerns on the trademark “derivations” before, but it is okay that my minority view was not accepted. Now I want to speak
loud against the 50 variations to include “translation” or “transliteration” of any mark although its “abuse” has been recorded in previous proceedings. There would be ridiculous results particularly where these marks are generic terms, like APPLE, SUN or DOVE. If taking into account the same or similar marks registered in different class and country (like Havana Club registered in both US and Cuba by different parties), 50 variations are simply opening a can of worm.  Even if this is merely for sunrise and claims, the chaos would be unimagineable.

3. New gTLDs: IPC/BC Proposal for Additional RPMs (11/13/12)

I noted IPC/BC’s proposal at IGF week and had a sense that they were making substantive demands to expand the RMPs that have been written down. Your message actually confirmed my guessing.

I agree we separate “implementation” from “policy-making” and subject the latter to PDP rather a shortcut at such late stage. But I also
concern that “implementation” can be used to shield substantive decisions on policies, with limited/restricted community involvement
and in very short period of time. Except 5-6 (7 is indeed imcomprehensible), all involves substantive policy choices or even new
policy decisions. To me, it should all be subject to PDP or deserve at least a decent period for cross-community inputs. Had the Brussels one
been announced? And had at-large been able to involve in it?

4. New gTLDs: URS (10/22/12)

As commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto, we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it
seems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting could be enabled under the name “implementation”. What do they want to
“draft” in the Drafting Team? Is the team cross-constituency or solely for GNSO? Normally implementation plan is completed by staff. Why is
it referred back to GNSO?

Neither URS nor TMCH covers marks other than trademarks/services (registered, protected by international law or by special domestic
law). They are all purely trademark measures. UDRP only covers trademarks or service marks. New gTLD trademark measures (URS or TMCH) covers: registered marks, marks protected by internaitonal law (such as Parma Ham) or marks protected by special decrees (such as Champagnes).

5. New gTLDs: IGOs/INGOs (09/13)

As I stated before, a broad “IOs” concept is adopted (rather than sticking to exclusive IGOs) and the legal nature of RoC or IOC is clarified.

The Report is on “protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations including, International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).”

Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications
identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name
registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names’ protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.

I made a careful study on the legal status of both organizations, and find that both IOC and RC are actually international Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). So, if there could be a holistic solution (DRP or else), it should cover all International Organizations (IOs), including international NGOs and IGOs. If we stick to the term IGOs, it could be no solution for IOC or RC at all.

6. New gTLDs: closed generic strings (02/13)

I think ICANN is going back to deal with the key issue of whether to interprete or monitor or control the registration policy (who can be the registrants and what can be registered as domain names)  of a new TLD committed in the application. This does not only involve “closed
generic” TLD strings but many other issues, such as protection of IGO/INGO names, management of IDN variants and maintenance of the
“closeness” of the community-based TLDs. Currently, all the application committments are yet to be included in the delegation agreement and thus will not be subject to the “compliance” mechanism.

Should ICANN change this Laissez-faire approach, generally or specific for closed generic TLD strings? I think ICANN should have a holistic view.

 2013年1月18日，由北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主办，北龙中网（北京）科技有限责任公司、中国互联网络信息中心协办的“新通用顶级域名争议解决制度”研讨会在京师大厦第一会议室成功举行。

 本次研讨会由北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授主持，政府机构、中国国际贸易仲裁委员会、新增通用顶级域名申请机构、相关服务机构代表以及学术界代表共计20余人参加了此次会议。

ICANN新增通用顶级域名的申请、审查、授权程序正在进入关键阶段，有关的争议解决程序渐次启动。有关政府已经对于部分申请的字符提出了早期预警，独立异议人发表了对于部分在公众评论中争议较多的字符的初步意见，有可能进一步提出独立异议。随着初始评审的结束，大量的申请人必须面对是否对他人字符提出异议的抉择，或者将要面临被他人异议的命运。四类异议程序将让新增通用顶级域名程序进入白热化状态。中文社区对此宜早作准备。

研讨会由中国政务和公益机构域名注册管理中心主任王云发表致辞；北京师范大学互联网政策与法律研究中心主任薛虹教授做主题发言；香港DotAsin董事乔荠就新增通用顶级域名授权之前的异议程序进行了发言；在研讨阶段，与会人员就新增通用顶级域名授权之后的争议解决政策及TMCH等相关服务的问题发表了自己的意见，并进行了热烈的讨论。

本次研讨会取得了圆满成功，使中文社区有关各方意见得到充分交流，凝聚了各方力量。本次研讨会为中文社区更好的应对争议解决系列问题做出了贡献。

ICANN completed its 43rd meeting in Toronto. The new CEO took office and a couple high-level officers appointed. Over the busy week, I drafted a few policy documents that have been adopted by the pertinent constituencies.

I drafted the “ALAC Statement on Trademark Clearinghouse Document”.

In August 2012 the Registry Stakeholder Group filed a DIDP requesting all documents relating to

• Any claims alleging ownership of intellectual property rights made by any bidder or bidders [for Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)] responding to the RFI, including but not limited to claims of copyright in data or compilations of data, patents, trademarks or trade secrets; and

• Any analysis regarding validity of these claims.

In September 2012 ICANN responded that: Regarding this item, to the extent that bidders made claims of ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the proposed operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, those materials are subject to the same conditions of non–disclosure identified in conjunction with Documents on cost and financial models regarding the operation of TMCH. Regarding claims of ownership of intellectual property rights arising out of the operation of TMCH are being negotiated and will be published in the finalized agreement later.

The ALAC wishes to request further information on the following:

• Intellectual property rights affect or impact ICANN’s decision and selection of TMCH providers. Legally, except trade secrets, intellectual property rights, including Patents, Copyright, Trademarks, should be publicly disclosed in due course either for subsistence or exercise. Will intellectual property rights that affect or impact ICANN’s decision or selection, be disclosed to the community in due course, or will they be allowed to remain secret?
• Will ICANN (and its community) be appropriately licensed on royalty-free or RAND (reasonableand-non-discriminatory) basis by the relevant intellectual property owners?
• Is ICANN developing necessary intellectual property policy for decision-making or contract negotiation?

The ALAC further advises that ICANN needs to implement a thoughtful and comprehensive intellectual property policy in which the global public interest is properly secured. In this regard, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) intellectual property policy sets a good example.

____________________________________________

I draft ALAC Comments on IDN ccTLDs PDP.

We note with concern that the draft recommendations consider selected IDN ccTLD strings to be confusingly similar based on their appearance to “a reasonable Internet user who is unfamiliar with the script” although “linguistic, technical, and visual perception factors” will be taken into consideration.  Notwithstanding the merit and rationale for this assessment criterion, an assessment on confusing similarity based primarily on the appearance of selected strings to users unfamiliar with the script may not be consistent with the nature and purpose of IDN ccTLDs, which are fundamentally introduced for the use and benefit of local IDN users in pertinentccTLD territories.  Without taking into account sufficient linguistic factors, problematic results may occur.  For example, an IDNccTLD that is assessed as not confusingly similar by a user “who is unfamiliar with the script” may well be deemed confusingly similar by the local IDN user and vice versa.  We believe that this particular issue can be addressed in the policy making processthrough more consultations with the IDN communities in implicated ccTLD territories.

ICANN’s 44th meeting was held on June 23-28, 2012 in Prague, Czech Republic. This was another multi-stakeholder international gather for ICANN, attracting a number of international organizations, governments, civil society groups and businesses. During the meeting, a series of high-profile sessions on Internet governance, New gTLDs Program, Trademark measures, etc. were held. Lei Liu, the doctoral candidate of IIPL，participated the meeting as a fellow selected by ICANN Fellowship Program.

One of interesting decision announced by ICANN is the appointment of Trademark Clearinghouse providers, namely IBM and Deloitte respectively responsible for database technical management and data management. Both are new gTLD applicants and both based in Belgium. The whole selection process was completely black-boxed and staff-driven. Many community-based bidders were ignored.

Another issue interesting is ICANN’s handing with so-called “Academy Training Proposal.” Despite the declaration from the staff that they had been following the discussion and drafting of this proposal in at-large community for more than one year, they were not aware of draft curriculum and setting arrangement  that had been online for quite a long time. It seems that a new and separate pilot program would be run by ICANN in Toronto, although the leading staff would be willing to listen to the community inputs still.

During the meeting, Lei Liu took part in many sessions and discussions with the other 21 fellows from 17 countries around the world. As newcomers, the fellows showed extremely high enthusiasm in ICANN’s business. It is believed that today’s newcomers will play a more important role in the future.

ICANN 43rd International Meeting was held in San Jose, Costa Rica on March 11-16, 2012. The cloudy great volcano likes wearing a white hat, symbolizing the most green country in Caribbean sea. It was a long trip from Beijing to Los Angeles to San Salvador to San Jose, almost 2 days on road. The tiredness did not prevent a group of us from driving a few hundred of miles to visit the Volcano. After enjoying a volcanic hot spring  and a short night in a country inn, we drove to the Great One in the early morning. Unfortunately, we did not see the miracle circle top in the white cloudy dawn. But a a visit to a mountain-view was pleasure and refreshing. Then another long drive back to the conference hall in Ramada Hotel. I immediately joined the ccNSO Strategic Operational working group meeting.

From Monday I have been busy with a variety of meetings in different constituencies. In the afternoon, I noted the seriously biased IDN Variants Project Plan and had a long debate with the ICANN team to be funded by million of dollars against their unfair treatment to Chinese-character set.

Tuesday was a busy day full of ccNSO meetings. I made a presentation in the most interesting session of the whole meeting, “law enforcement”. After a couple of boring briefings on SOPA bills etc., MX and KR, my presentation on the domain names real names campaign attracted huge attention. People from GNSO or other stakeholder group joined the meeting and kept asking questions. What’s interesting was that a few non-professional and self-nominated “cyber-watchers” irresponsibly reported my presents to the domestic authorities, which got me in trouble later on after my coming back to Beijing.  Were they officious or wicked? I don’t know but they did waste tax-payers’ money to travel 10,000 miles to espionage me in San Jose. On the other hand, Internet-cleaning campaign was propagated by themselves as a big achievement. Idiots ain’t they?

Poor me was working hard to organizing a Chinese community meeting when being spied by these brainless amateur spies. I chaired a land-mark swimming pool meeting on Wednesday morning. I briefed them on IDN variant issues and the threat of project plan, and addressed the trademark clearing house. Then I arranged the group of people to attend the different meetings to voice the Chinese community’s concerns. Knet, Conac, dotAsia, Cnnic and a few new gTLD applicants and registrars joined the meeting. On Wednesday morning, I gave another speech on registrations by individuals under dotCN. I assume it succinctly follows the lines this time. Whose line is it anyway?

Thursday morning I spent a little time in the downtown of San Jose. It was pretty small but reasonable. I came back in time for the public forum in the afternoon. Surprisingly there were not many tough questions this time. People got tired after debating for more than 10 years.

Friday morning I took a walk on the Golf Course nearby but was lost eventually. That was bad experience and also a bad sign actually–the beginning of my long torment. I’m leaving for the airport at noon. I lost my luggage en route–San Jose to Miami to Los Angeles to Beijing. I suffered terribly in those 5 days.