Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse: Difference between revisions

Line 38:

==Comments on ICANN==

The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse openly criticized the current ICANN structure and claimed that the international internet governing body abandoned some of its decision-making power and were taken over by some of the stake holders within the ICANN commity that are profiting from domain names. The organization ~~is participating~~ in the activities of ICANN to represent the interests of businesses and consumers and to ~~push~~ its ~~objective~~ to ~~evaluate~~ the ~~internet governing body~~'~~s organizational structure~~ to be able to ~~implement necessary reforms~~.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/~~issues~~ CADNA ~~Issues~~]</ref>

The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse openly criticized the current ICANN structure and claimed that the international internet governing body abandoned some of its decision-making power and were taken over by some of the stake holders within the ICANN commity that are profiting from domain names. The organization actively participates in the activities of ICANN particularly in providing its comments on policy issues to represent the interests of businesses and consumers.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/issues CADNA Issues]</ref>

CADNA provided comments on numerous issues discussed by the ICANN community particularly the latest issue on the implementation of the new gTLD expansion program, which was scheduled to take effect on January 2012. During the development process of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, CADNA has been active in submitting its public comments and recommendations.The organization recommended the following revisions to the Draft Application Guidebook Version 4:<ref>

[http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdfxYPf2O79Wh.pdf Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version]</ref>

* '''Intellectual Property Should Be the Priority in Background Checks'''- CADNA expressed that it is interested to know the about the selection criteria and detailed information of the agency that will be chosen to conduct background checks. Checking the history of intellectual property violations should be the top priority of background checks.

* '''ICANN Should Require Proof of Good Standing'''- CADNA argued that it is necessary to require applicants to prove their good standing early on to prevent waste of time and resources.

* '''[[Whois]] Requirements Should be Uniform'''- The organization reiterated that ICANN should be specific in its rules and ensure the maintenance of an accurate Whois Database.

* ''' Mandatory Sunrise Period Should Not Hold Domain Names Hostage'''- CADNA recognized the importance of the Sunrise period and suggested that domain names should not be offered on a very high price. Registries should prioritize trademark owners to register their domain names and it should be too expensive.

* ''' Trademark Clearinghouse Should be More than a Database'''- CADNA proposed that ICANN needs to review further the purpose of the Clearinghouse as a mechanism for the protection of trademarks and not just a mere repository for information.

* ''' Certain Clearinghouse Services Should be Limite'''- Entities who will be given the right to access the data services of the Clearinghouse should be clarified by ICANN. In addition, the organization suggested ICANN to develop and implement to guard data and guarantee its exclusive use by relevant trademark owners.

* '''The Term "text mark" Should be Clearly Defined- CADNA asked ICANN to clarify what constitutes a text mark.

* '''Cost Should be Shared by Stakeholders'''- CADNA emphasized that the beneficiaries of the Trademark Clearinghouse are not only brand owners, therefore the costs should be borne by all stakeholders.

* ''' Decision on Third-Party Contractor Should be Open and Transparent'''- The organization encouraged ICANN to select a contractor with a strong background in trademark protection issues and the process should be done in an open and transparent manner.

* '''The URS should be able to Transfer Domain Names, Expedited and Utilize Forms'''

* '''Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)'''- CADNA suggested the following:

## Registry operators should be hold accountable for certain domain name infringements occurrences within their registries.

## PDDRP Should Not Unnecessarily Burden Complainant

## Expert Panel Decisions Should be Enforce

## ICANN Should Set Limits for Cost

* '''ICANN Should Combine the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure ([[RRDRP]]) and ([[PDDRP]])'''

CADNA has been open in expressing to ICANN that the new gTLD program was premature and it lacks transparency, however the organization clarified that is not totally against the introduction of new TLD.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/blog?page=2 CADNA Letter to the Editor]</ref>

==References==

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 ==Comments on ICANN==
-The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse openly criticized the current ICANN structure and claimed that the international internet governing body abandoned some of its decision-making power and were taken over by some of the stake holders within the ICANN commity that are profiting from domain names. The organization is participating in the activities of ICANN to represent the interests of businesses and consumers and to push its objective to evaluate the internet governing body's organizational structure to be able to implement necessary reforms.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/issues CADNA Issues]</ref>
+The Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse openly criticized the current ICANN structure and claimed that the international internet governing body abandoned some of its decision-making power and were taken over by some of the stake holders within the ICANN commity that are profiting from domain names. The organization actively participates in the activities of ICANN particularly in providing its comments on policy issues to represent the interests of businesses and consumers.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/issues CADNA Issues]</ref>
+CADNA provided comments on numerous issues discussed by the ICANN community particularly the latest issue on the implementation of the new gTLD expansion program, which was scheduled to take effect on January 2012. During the development process of the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook, CADNA  has been active in submitting its public comments and recommendations.The organization recommended the following revisions to the Draft Application Guidebook Version 4:<ref>
+[http://forum.icann.org/lists/4gtld-guide/pdfxYPf2O79Wh.pdf Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook Version]</ref>
+* '''Intellectual Property Should Be the Priority in Background Checks'''- CADNA expressed that it is interested to know the  about the selection criteria and detailed information of the agency that will be chosen to conduct background checks. Checking the history of intellectual property violations should be the top priority of background checks.
+* '''ICANN Should Require Proof of Good Standing'''- CADNA argued that it is necessary to require applicants to prove their good standing early on to prevent waste of time and resources.
+* '''[[Whois]] Requirements Should be Uniform'''- The organization reiterated that ICANN should be specific in its rules and ensure the maintenance of an accurate Whois Database.
+* ''' Mandatory Sunrise Period Should Not Hold Domain Names Hostage'''- CADNA recognized the importance of the Sunrise period and suggested that domain names should not be offered on a very high price. Registries should prioritize trademark owners to register their domain names and it should be too expensive.
+* ''' Trademark Clearinghouse Should be More than a Database'''- CADNA proposed that ICANN needs to review further the purpose of the Clearinghouse as a mechanism for the protection of trademarks and not just a mere repository for information.
+* ''' Certain Clearinghouse Services Should be Limite'''- Entities who will be given the right to access the data services of the Clearinghouse should be clarified by ICANN. In addition, the organization suggested ICANN to develop and implement to guard data and guarantee its exclusive use by relevant trademark owners.
+* '''The Term "text mark" Should be Clearly Defined- CADNA asked ICANN to clarify what constitutes a text mark.
+* '''Cost Should be Shared by Stakeholders'''- CADNA emphasized that the beneficiaries of the Trademark Clearinghouse are not only brand owners, therefore the costs should be borne by all stakeholders.
+* ''' Decision on Third-Party Contractor Should be Open and Transparent'''- The organization encouraged ICANN to select a contractor with a strong background in trademark protection issues and the process should be done in an open and transparent manner.
+* '''The URS should be able to Transfer Domain Names, Expedited and Utilize Forms'''
+* '''Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)'''- CADNA suggested the following:
+## Registry operators should be hold accountable for certain domain name infringements occurrences within their registries.
+## PDDRP Should Not Unnecessarily Burden Complainant
+## Expert Panel Decisions Should be Enforce
+##  ICANN Should Set Limits for Cost
+* '''ICANN Should Combine the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure ([[RRDRP]]) and ([[PDDRP]])'''
+CADNA has been open in expressing to ICANN that the new gTLD program was premature and it lacks transparency, however the organization clarified that is not totally against the introduction of new TLD.<ref>[http://www.cadna.org/en/blog?page=2 CADNA Letter to the Editor]</ref>
 ==References==