As of 00:00 UTC today – 4 days after the launch of the Fast Track Process we have new requests coming in.

The total number is 10 requests. They spread over 5 different languages.

Details about the process is at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/

Please keep asking questions. Is there is anything we can explain better? The FAQ will be updated shortly to include everything you ask here as well.

Not having been to an ICANN event, I didn’t know what to expect from the “Regional Gathering of ICANN-Accredited Registrars and gTLD Registries” when it came to Toronto last week. A check of the agenda had me wondering if some of the material would be over my head. The subject matter included security, compliance, data escrow and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement among other things. As I said, I try to stay up on what’s happening with ICANN, so at least I was familiar with most of topics being discussed.

The first session I attended was probably not the best introduction to the inner workings of ICANN. I had heard that there was a tendency to use acronyms to excess, so I came armed with a BlackBerry and the link to the ICANN website glossary. Despite my efforts, I still found myself leaning over on a number of occasions to ask my more experienced neighbours what the ALAC was and why the New gTLD AG3 was all about.

Once I got past the acronyms and got some background on some of the issues, I began to see in the room a group of people, each representing different interests, struggling to come to a consensus on how best to proceed. There was most definitely differing viewpoints presented, and a clear belief of being right about the best way to proceed. However, there was also a clear passion shared around the room (and around the world via phone) for ensuring that the eventual solution, or direction taken was the best for the Internet community as a whole.

Outside of the discussions around issues like the new Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the New gTLD Program which get a lot of press around the Internet industry, the gathering provided a good introduction to the work of some other areas of ICANN.

A presentation by Yurie Ito, Director, Global Security Programs for ICANN provided an excellent introduction to the kinds of challenges that the industry faces in terms of criminal activity and other abuse on the Internet. Presentations from representatives from .MOBI and .ASIA were valuable in understanding how different registries are working to market their domain extensions to the public.

The discussions about how the de-accreditation process was and wasn’t working revealed some of the differing challenges faced by ICANN, registries and registrars when a de-accreditation was undertaken. While the process is clearly not yet perfect, it was also clear that each of the stakeholders was committed to doing right by the registrants and was willing to give and take to ensure the best possible outcome was achieved.

That said, what I found most valuable was simply being a part of it. Lunch meant a chance to meet and converse with counterparts at other registrars, partners at registries, and even some long-time customers of Tucows. The evening activities, including a fantastic night at the baseball game (thanks to Afilias) allowed everyone to unwind and walk away from the issues that have the potential to overwhelm and burn out those who are front and center in the process.

Adam Eisner mentioned to me after day one that the most rewarding part of being involved in ICANN was that you were a part of the process that leads to changes that have a real impact on the Internet and how it works. It was a chance to be one of the people making it better.

The perception some have, and I confess that included myself, is that ICANN is a mess of bureaucracy and that nothing ever gets done. Sure, ICANN can be a frustrating experience at times – that was made clear in some of the discussions that took place. But I think that those involved have an unequivocal understanding of the task they have taken on and the challenge it represents.

There is little room for error when you start changing the very structure of the Internet. Second chances are hard to come by with a global network of such immense value to society. What’s amazing to me is that those involved are willing to work to make it better as opposed to being frozen in the fear of messing it all up.

The net result of attending the gathering is both a fuller understanding of just what is involved in nurturing and stewarding of this amazing thing called the Internet. I’ll definitely pay more attention to what’s happening, both through the remote access that ICANN provides and hopefully also in person in the future.

Because we coordinate the domain name system, ICANN is sometimes wrongly seen as the ultimate authority over anything that happens with the domain name system. The reality is quite different, so this blog post explains ICANN’s role and relates that to this particular issue.

While ICANN does ultimately set the rules by which domain names are registered, it does not possess the power to overturn decisions that are made within the rules. Why? Because ICANN, through its bottom-up policy development, seeks to provide distributed, independent decision making that is placed in the hands most suited toward making these sorts of decisions.

A system for domain disputes

One of the first things that ICANN did shortly after it was created in 1998 was introduce an independent system for deciding on domain name disputes. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Process, known as UDRP, was developed by a wide group of individuals representing a broad cross-section of different interests.

The idea was to create a faster and less expensive alternative to the courts to make decisions about who had ownership rights over a particular domain.

The UDRP allows anyone with a trademark to go to one of four approved UDRP independent arbitrators and request that they review whether a domain infringes their rights. If you want more information, please go to: http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/, or Wikipedia’s article on UDRP, but broadly: the UDRP looks at three main issues when it decides if a domain is infringing someone else’s rights and so should be handed over to that person.

They are:

• Whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark
• Whether the registrant has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain
• Whether the domain is being used in “bad faith”

Since the UDRP was first introduced, nearly 30,000 cases have been successfully arbitrated.

What happened in the YouTubeIslam.com case?

In this case, Google went to one of the approved arbitration bodies and asked for the domain to be looked at for trademark infringement.

Google has a trademark in “YouTube”, the very well-known video site, and it argued that the current registrant did not have rights in the name and that it was using the site in “bad faith” – which is a legal term interpreted by the arbiter, but in this case might mean using the site to attract visitors by appearing to associate yourself with someone else.

When the NAF received the complaint, it sent a copy to the registrant of YouTubeIslam.com (actually to all three contacts for the domain: technical, administrative and billing) by email, by post and by fax, and asked them to respond to Google’s claims.

Decision

No one responded to those requests and that meant no-one defended the case, so the process went forward without them. The National Arbitration Forum (NAF) chose an arbitrator to look at the complaint and he, considering the three tests, decided in favor of Google. The arbitrator then directed the registrar of the domain (GoDaddy) to transfer the domain to Google within 10 days of the decision – which means by 5 August 2009: tomorrow.

You can read the NAF’s full decision and explanation at http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1266305.htm.

Why did the NAF decide for Google and against the current registrant of YouTubeIslam.com?

According to the decision, the arbitrator found that the domain has been registered, and was being used to trade off YouTube’s name.

Here’s an excerpt from the decision’s “findings” section: “Respondent registered the domain name on January 27, 2007. The disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent allows users to upload and view videos and information about the Islamic faith. The disputed domain name’s resolving website copies the look and feel of Complainant’s website, including the use of tabs for different parts of its website such as “Home”, “Channels”, and “Community”, which are identical to those on Complainant’s domain name and resolving website.”

Back to ICANN

So what has this to do with ICANN? For a day-to-day standpoint, very little. ICANN has no role or influence in these proceedings. While ICANN as a community organization did develop the UDRP rules, and while it also has contracts with both the registry (dot-com) and the registrar (GoDaddy), the whole process happened entirely within the rules and so ICANN plays no part in any particular case such as this.

As explained earlier, ICANN doesn’t resolve disputes. The registrar acted in accordance with their contract with ICANN, and the arbitration system worked according to the process as defined.

The decision was not a reflection on the website content. It was purely based on the issue of trademark infringement where Google possesses rights in the YouTube brand.

We can understand why those concerned about the decision may wish to approach ICANN and ask the organization to intervene. Hopefully this post makes it clear why that is not only possible but also why ICANN would not wish to get involved even if it was able: because none of the rules have been broken.

Can the decision be appealed?

If the current registrant of YouTubeIslam.com wishes to contest the decision, it is able to file a lawsuit against it and request that any transfer be stopped until the court process is decided. Ultimately, it is the courts that can decide ownership rights.

You can find all of those videos posted on the Cairo site at http://cai.icann.org/video, and we will also be posted all ICANN videos on the main site under a new tab “Videos”.

This video features Senior Vice President of Services, Kurt Pritz, talking about the session he ran on the recently released Applicant Guidebook, going through it with attendees and taking questions and comments.

Below is a transcript of the video and off to the right is the video itself.

# Domaine.info
# Domaine.info and ICANN Present
# ICANN CAIRO Egypt November 2008
# Workshop Understanding the Draft RFP for New gTLDs A NovaMedias Production
# Hi, I’m Kurt Pritz. We just finished a well attended session on the new gTLD applicant guidebook that was originally posted on our website.
# The purpose of the workshop was to describe for potential applicants and those interested in the new gTLD process
# the nuts and bolts associated with applying for a new TLD. The guidebook provides a direction manual for those interested in applying.
# The presentation started with some of the principles associated with the guidebook. The fact that the guidebook and the whole gTLD process
# and the introduction of the new gTLDs into the root zone was really more in ICANN’s mission at its founding…
# and then it was carried through by an intensive policy development process that was carried through by ICANN’s policy making bodies…
# notable the gnsl that provided policy recommendations to ICANN in creating this body of work.
# Its ICANN now implementing those policy recommendations that are going to allow iCANN to open up the domain space
# and provide additional competition and choice for consumers and the internet.
# These TLDs will be introduced with principles of conservatism, both technical and fiscal , the introduction of names in a measured way
# that will provide for the ongoing stability and security of the domain name system.
# So beyond that, the workshop took potential applicants and those who are interested, through the various application
# and evaluation criteria that applicants for new top level domains will be measured against and tried to present a clear road map
# of the applicant guidebook so those that attended or who will attend online later, can look at the guidebook and find the info they wish to find.
# ICANN’s published this applicant guidebook as a draft for community discussion. The clear idea is to garner opinions
# and expert advice from those members on the community that can offer information that will result in improvements to the draft RFP.
# Thus far at this meeting already we have seen several comments that will serve to improve
# the quality of the RFP and the integration into an entire process.
# There was a comment regarding vision for opening the domain space and defining that vision well so that, at the end of the day
# when the round is over, we can measure the results of the new gTLD process to determine if those objectives have been met.
# There are also several specific suggestions regarding individual elements of the applicant guidebook,where that can be improved.
# So already, even though there will be some changes to the guidebook, to the directions for applying for a new TLD
# that will make it more effective. We look forward to carrying on discussions this week and through the next month and a half
# so that those suggestions can be incorporated in the next draft applicant guidebook that will be published in early 2009.
# So as with all ICANN staff and board members we’re delighted to be here in Cairo and we would like to thank our host for hosting such a great meeting.
# I also want the thank the participants in the meeting. Those who attended gave up their time and have spent time looking at all these
# materials in order to provide their advice and expertise so I would like to thank them for that.

The event in Seoul was the largest gathering to date with more than 68 participants representing 26 registrars and six registries. And, of the 56 registrar participants, 54% reported that they had not previously attended an ICANN meeting. Also, for the first time since the inception of the gatherings, presentation materials were provided in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Additionally, clean and red-lined versions of the RAA and proposed changes were provided in the same languages.

Topics presented at the gathering included a summary of the outcomes of the recent Paris meeting, proposed amendments to the RAA, protection of registrants (registrar data escrow/interim terminated registrar transition plan and registry failover), IDNs, new gTLDs, compliance/UDRP, GNSO policy items, IPv4/IPv6, and recent Board actions around the Add Grace Period (AGP).

The event was supported through generous contributions from DotAsia, Afilias and NeuStar.

For further information about this event, please contact Craig Schwartz or Tim Cole.