Here it is in full:

“”"”For ICANN:

The ICANN Board should determine and announce when the next round of new gTLD applications will occur. A major source of anxiety that businesses feel around the New gTLD Program stems from fear that if they do not acquire their own new gTLD in this first round, they will be put at a disadvantage relative to their competitors, in the event those competitors apply and gain a theoretical advantage from owning gTLDs, for an unknown period of time. Announcing the date of a second round would go far towards alleviating this anxiety.

To lessen the financial burden on trademark owners and improve consumer protection, ICANN should consider including a requirement in the Applicant Guidebook that all new gTLD registries that choose to sell second-level domains to registrants adopt a low-cost, one-time block for trademark owners to protect their trademarks in perpetuity.

ICANN should consider adopting a pricing structure where a single applicant applying for multiple gTLDs pays a reduced rate for the subsequent gTLD applications, provided that the applicant has trademarks for those applied-for strings predating 2008, and that those strings are exact matches of their registered marks. Many businesses that choose to apply for their own gTLD will likely also feel they need to apply for other gTLDs, either in other languages or scripts, or for other vital business units.

ICANN should allow non-profit organizations that want to apply for their organizations’ names as gTLDs to qualify to participate in the Applicant Support Program, as described by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) to lessen the financial burden on non-profits.

For the U.S. Congress:

The U.S. Congress should take much-needed action to improve the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) in order to provide stronger deterrents against cybersquatting, both in existing gTLDs and any new ones that are created.

For the NTIA:

If ICANN is awarded the new IANA contract following its expiration in March 2012, its structure and policy development process should also be subject to an audit. To ensure that this is done, the contract should be renewed for a short period of time, perhaps only two years. During this time, there should be an evaluation of whether ICANN followed through on its commitments with regard to the gTLD process, and extension of the contract should be contingent on conducting internal reforms to improve governance and transparency.…

“”The U.S Congress should take much-needed action to improve the language of the Anti- Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), so that it provides proper deterrents against cybersquatting.”"

“”Cybersquatting to the left of the dot is already a massive problem; with approximately 200 million domain name registrations concentrated mainly in .COM there already exist millions of brand-infringing domains. We know it is unlikely that the new gTLDs will garner this volume of cybersquatting, but that doesn’t mean they won’t have a significant impact. In reality what we need is an immediate update to U.S. law and a process that not only curbs and deters
cybersquatting in the existing TLDs, but any new ones that are created.”

“At this point, CADNA’s best guess is that there could be around 800 applications in early 2012 during the three-month application period. Of those estimated 800 applications, what CADNA has also come to realize is that likely two-thirds to three-quarters of applications could come from
strategic enterprises that will choose to run their registries in a “closed” way, for their own internal marketing uses and will not make second-level domain names available to registrants.”

“That leaves about 200 to 300 applicants representing communities or acting as entrepreneurs pursuing mainly geographic and generic gTLD strings that will likely be “open” in the sense that they sell second-level domains to registrants, some of whom will be cybersquatters.”

“”Cybersquatting to the right of the dot is very unlikely to occur,  this is a complex application, it’s an expensive process, the planned evaluation appears to be rigorous, and the objection process would certainly allow the owner of a trademark to prevent a party without rights from receiving a contract from ICANN.”

“”Therefore, the after-the-dot concerns for companies with very unique and strong trademarks are mainly related to competition. Will I be at a disadvantage? If I don’t apply and new gTLDs become popular, will my current URLs look out of date?”"

In response to a question from Subcommittee Chairman Walden, Bourne just stated that “there are probably tens of millions of cybersquatting domains in .com”,  and that CADNA was discussing revisions to the ACPA with Judiciary Committee staff.

Of course with a little of 100 Million .com registrations to say there are “tens of millions” of Cybersquatted domain names, its obvious that CADNA definition of a cyber sqautted domain is MUCH broader than current law.…

In a press release it sent out today,  Josh Bourne President of CADNA in his closing remarks at the “What’s at Stake: The Reality of ICANN’s New gTLD Program for Brands” conference at the Institute of International Education’s Edgar J. Kaufman Conference Center in New York City said:

“ICANN has an image problem,”

“Businesses are outright angry with ICANN because of the way that this program has been structured.

“We are not trying to derail the rollout of new gTLDs altogether, but rather, we are proposing an opportunity for ICANN to make this Program much less detrimental to brands and businesses. ”

“By setting a date for when it will open a second application window, ICANN has the chance to alleviate a great deal of the anxiety and frustration that businesses are feeling over the fact that they feel forced into applying for new gTLDs in early 2012 in order to not be left behind. Right now, businesses feel like their backs are against the wall, and they don’t like it.”

An interesting change in policy from CADNA previous position in urging more reviews and delay of the program. (also as recently as this year)

Of course the fact that back in 2009 CADNA was already asking for extended reviews and more time before the program started and the application period doesn’t start until 2012 its a pretty hard position to advocate that Brands need even more time and were some how caught by surprise by the new gTLD program without sufficient time to apply.

 …

“The segment discussed whether adding more domains for websites will have big implications for both consumers and companies.”

Ben Crawford of Central Nic and Dot Brand Solutions and Josh Bourne, the head of the The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA).

“Josh I had no idea domain names were being abused.” said the host of the show

Josh Borne said:

“Well they have been.”

“Domain names have grown to almost 210 million registrations worldwide, basically the reason is because it pays so much to to use brand names to confuse consumers and trick them into harmful scenarios.”

Should there be a .XXX domain? Asked the host:

Mr. Borne replied:

“No one was for .XXX, the right, the left, even the adult entertainment industry .

However, those in the domain industry believes they can sell a lot of domain names to brand owners who don’t want their brand associated with .XXX or the adult entertainment industry who are happy using the .Com they have now and don’t want their content blocked”

“No one wanted its other than the companies that want to sell the domains.”

Mr. Crawford then said:

“what brands want to do is to allow brands to get their own TLD….. and give them complete control over the extension.”

Why would we not do that? asks the host:

Ben said ICANN “has been working for a couple years on this to allow these TLD’s for brands, cities and communities that want their own extension, who are ready to to apply for them as soon as ICANN fires the starting pistol.”

The co-host of the show then ask Mr. Bourne why would it cost consumers more money if these extensions are allowed? to which Bourne replied:

“Globally over 90% of all Internet traffic is going to .Com. sites”

“With the huge amount of third party infringement domains, we know parties that ownn 30,000, 40,000 and 50,000 third party infringements its hard to protect consumers from fraud, they expect in the near future  20 times more extensions and there is no chance that companies can keep up with it.”

“In a world where consumers know to go to a .brands only is 5, 10 15 years away you have to undo and retrain people how to navigate the Internet.”

The co-host concluded:

“Although If there was one group who would know what they wanted to seek out,  it would be those seeking out .xxx”

Its an interesting discussion and you should check out the video tape which you can do by clicking here.…

“In a dramatic change of internet policy, ICANN has proposed to approve and implement the roll out of more than 400 new top-level domains within the next few months. Top-level domains are what you see to the right of the dot, such as “com” or “org.””"

OK other than his use of the term, RIGHT OF THE DOT (I like that) this is not a dramatic change, its a change that ICANN has been working on vigorously for over three years.

“Right now, there are 21 top-level domains. If ICANN’s new policy is implemented, we will see top-level domains such as .car, .newyorkcity, .hotels and hundreds more”

Well actually its going to be .nyc not .newyorkcity.

“Those in the business of making money by selling domain names agree, and, unfortunately, they have inserted themselves into ICANN’s policy-making process. For example, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) in ICANN’s multistakeholder operational model is responsible for introducing and developing the top-level domain policy at hand. The GNSO, however, is largely composed of the same registries and registrars that stand to gain financially by the proposed massive introduction of new top-level domains.”

The GNSO hasn’t inserted themselves into ICANN policy making decisions they are a stakeholder group like any other entitled to there opinion.  You could say the IP trademark group inserted themselves into the discussion but I guess the author is OK with that group influencing policy

“This new policy will have great social, economic and security costs.  If these new top-level domains are introduced, opportunities for cybercrime and fraud would be increased substantially.”

Where is the proof of that?

There are hundreds of ccTLD’s that carry the same risks.

“If you are a consumer attempting to set up a checking account online, and you have to decide which website to give your personal information to – citi.bank, bank.citi, citi.com, citi.bankaccount or even citichecking.bankaccount – how would you determine which are trusted sites providing accurate information? How would you determine which are fraudulent sites actively misinforming the public?”

Same way you do now, carefully.  Like you can bank at citibank.com you can bank at .citibank.

“A massive introduction of top-level domains will overwhelm the existing framework for combating cybercrime, putting millions of internet users at unnecessary risk.”

Another unsupported statement.…

Kevin Murphy the other day at his blog noted that Lego was filing on average 1 UDRP every 3 days.

Today comes the news that Lego has joined the Collation Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA) along with a Lundbeck A/S a global pharmaceutical company.

This is certainly a case where abusive registrations lead to another large corporation joining CADNA, adding to their coffers for lobbying efforts.…

The post talks about the numerous political candidates and members of Congress and holders of other political offices that don’t own the domain name of their own name.

According to the article again citing CADNA’s survey says that less than 1/2 of the 100 members of the Senate,  and only 40% percent of members of the House own their FullName.com domain names.

Only 32 percent of senators and 22 percent of representatives — when it came to their FullName.org names

Of course CADNA is using this as another opportunity to tell those in office and those trying to get elected this is just another example of those nasty Cybersqatters who buy up domains and then want to get compensated on them, although many of the domains are held by opposing candidates or even political parties:

“The report is aimed at focusing lawmakers’ attention on a practice known as cybersquatting, in which individuals buy up domain names and then use them to extract money or engage in mischief.”

Its just another angle that CADNA is going to try to use to get legislation passed to “Increase penalties for cybersquatting and cybercrime to deter these practices”.

Can’t wait until they come to lock up a guy say the head of the Indiana Republican Party, which owns the domain BradEllsworth.org.

“”Brad Ellsworth, an Indiana Democrat who is running for the Senate. The site forwards visitors to BadforIndiana.com, run by the Indiana Republican Party, which criticizes Mr. Ellsworth as a “reliable rubber stamp for liberal policies.”criticizes Mr. Ellsworth as a “reliable rubber stamp for liberal policies.”

And of course there is the rub, while CADNA is going to want laws passed to punish those cited in the article who would register and try to sell a domain, those opponents of candidates that control a domain of there opponent do much more harm to the candidate  than anyone holding just the domain.

Bottom line whether your in politics or not you better register your firstlast.com if you can.

We made a post way back in May 2008 highlighting what then was a “new trend” of parents naming their babies with domains in mind.

Sounds like a great idea.…

If you look at the inviation and agenda of this meeting you will see that CADNA is going to be pushing hard to get the Utah bill enacted as a precursor to ACPA amendments that define cybersquatting in a way that encompasses many domainer activities, substantially increase civil money penalties, and introduce criminal penalties.

It appears CADNA is trying to get hearings in Congress to build a record that cybersquatting is costing trademark owners billions, and pass laws that will associate domain parking with infringement.

Such legislation, if enacted, would likely restrict domain industry monetization models, heighten litigation risk, and reduce portfolio values.

As we discussed the other day, domainers will have NO representation at this meeting and no one to lobby on behalf of domainers in either the Utah house where this bill is currently pending or at the federal level where CADNA is heading.

Here is the Text of CADNA invitation letter:

“”"”"The forum features Utah State Senator Stephen Urquhart, who will present his E-Commerce Integrity Act and explain its impact on federal legislation.  Additionally, a number of policy experts and Congressional staff will discuss ICANN and ACPA related policy issues. These issues are a part of understanding the unnecessary unruliness in the domain name space, which is costing businesses over $1 Billion per year.

Online brand issues are off to a quick start in 2010. Senator Urquhart’s Utah E-Commerce Integrity Act already is under consideration and if passed may be a harbinger of changes to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) at the federal level.

Don’t miss Senator Urquhart, policy experts, and US congressional staff as they present their views on how 2010 is shaping up.

Keynote Speaker: The Honorable Stephen Urquhart (R-UT 29th District), Chairman Utah State Senate Transportation and Public Utilities and Technology Committee
Additional Speakers:
Curtis LeGeyt, Counsel to Chairman Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee
Chan Lieu, Senior Professional Staff Member, Chairman Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Additional speakers will be named as they are confirmed

Agenda:

Panel I: After the AOC: Congress and ICANN Accountability

Policy experts and US Congressional staff discuss reactions to the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) and expectations for ICANN’s future.…

CADNA also announced that their membership increased 80% in 2008.

“”"”This is clear evidence that more businesses recognize the need to speak out about domain name abuse, including cybersquatting, phishing, and domain name tasting. With the support of its member companies, CADNA is eager to address domain name abuses in 2009.”"”

“”"”A major concern is that, based on conservative projections, the three-year cost to business of registering new domains in the proposed new TLDs to prevent loophole exploitations and combat significant harm caused by fraudsters could be more than $1,500,000,000.

If there was any doubt as to CADNA goals for 2009 this statement should clarify things:

“”"”"With a new government taking office in January, CADNA has begun increasing its efforts to bring attention to these problems and feels confident that, under the leadership of President-elect Obama and the 111th Congress, these concerns will be addressed as part of the country’s efforts to maintain leadership in areas related to technology and to protect its economy and national security. “”"”"

“”"”The Coalition is confident that its plans will allow CADNA to continue to positively redefine the domain name space.”"”

Interesting, CADNA wants to redefine the “domain name space”.

Certainly not good news for domain holders.

We know they want to redefine the space as being a place for “cybersquatting, phishing, and domain name tasting, continuing on their move for a Snowe Bill 2 and criminalizing certain actions which are now purely civil matters.

When you look at ICA’s annual statement and compare it to this announcement from CADNA, you will soon see how far behind domainers are from this group of trademark holders, in organization and funding.…