[comments-gtlds] Copyright Coalition on Domain Names Comments on Working Group C

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

COMMENTS ON THE REPORT OF WORKING GROUP C
Filed by the 
COPYRIGHT COALITION ON DOMAIN NAMES
April 13, 2000

	These comments on the report of Working Group C are filed on behalf
of the Copyright Coalition on Domain Names, a coalition of copyright
industry groups (listed below).   

	CCDN takes no position on whether new gTLDs are needed; clearly
there are good arguments on both sides of that proposition.  Nor do we
necessarily disagree with the concept of an initial rollout of six to ten
new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  In our view, neither of these
"consensus positions" reflected in the report addresses the critical
questions of the preconditions for initiating new gTLDs, and how those new
gTLDs should operate.  If the preconditions do not exist, and the operating
guidelines are wrong, then six to ten new gTLDs is far too many.  If, on the
other hand, the preconditions are met and sound operating guidelines are in
place, then the well-planned rollout of new gTLDs could potentially be
carried out with a greater number than six to ten.

	The following ground rules should be incorporated in the operating
principles of every new gTLD:
  
(a)     Registrant contact data 

All registrants of Second Level Domains (SLDs) should be required to provide
complete and accurate contact data, and to keep it current.  Failure to
fulfill this obligation should result in termination or cancellation of the
SLD. 
  
(b)     Whois 

Managers of each gTLD must provide free, real-time access, via the World
Wide Web, to a current database of contact data on its registrants.  This
data should be fully searchable and should be available to the public
without substantial restrictions on use (other than those restrictions
required to protect the integrity and availability of the database or its
exploitation for purposes such as inappropriate mass commercial
solicitations). 

[c]  	Effective dispute resolution policy

An effective dispute resolution policy for the new gTLD must be in place
before it begins taking any registrations.  CCDN welcomes the new Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy and looks forward to the evaluation of its
operations.  It is far too soon to tell how effective the UDRP has been,
since it has been in operation for just a few months and has resolved few
contested cases.  The dispute resolution policy for a new gTLD need not
necessarily be the same one that has been adopted for the existing gTLDs,
but however it is structured it should be capable of delivering resolution
of disputes over the registration and use of domain names swiftly, in a
transparent manner, at low cost, and as efficiently as possible. 

(d)  Protection for famous marks 

This is the bailiwick of Working Group B, so we mention it here simply as
one of the essential prerequisites for a successful new gTLD.   

(e)     Compliance Review 

There must be an effective mechanism whereby ICANN or a comparable body can
verify gTLD compliance with these policies, including a mechanism for
receiving and resolving complaints that a specific gTLD manager is not
complying with these policies. 
  
If these preconditions are in place and new gTLDs are bound to operate in
accordance with these criteria, there is no reason why new gTLDs should not
be inaugurated, at a reasonable and controlled pace, so that their success
may be evaluated.  However, if new gTLDs are allowed to commence operations
before these criteria have been satisfied, there is a real risk of serious
harm to consumers, intellectual property owners, and all legitimate
participants in the domain name system.  

The Working Group C report appears to denigrate some of these concerns by
characterizing them as "the argument that ICANN should impose substantial
delays on the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the interest of adopting or
perfecting trademark-protective mechanisms."   That misses the point and
understates what is at stake.  This issue does not affect only trademark
owners.  Consumers have a vital interest in a strong and transparent Whois
system, so that they can determine whom they are dealing with online.  All
domain name registrants have an interest in a fair, efficient dispute
resolution process.  Basic principles of accountability and fairness require
that domain name registrants should not be allowed to do business -
legitimate or otherwise - under the cover of clearly false contact details
provided during the registration process.  

CCDN submits that the criteria listed above are not as controversial as they
used to be.  The basic contact data and Whois rules are already firmly
established in the current gTLD environment, and are gaining wider
acceptance within the ccTLD universe as well.  ICANN has recognized the need
for a compliance capability (point (e) above) and is working to develop it.
The existing UDRP, while subject to legitimate criticism for its
shortcomings, is a step in the right direction; and, as noted above, other
dispute resolution mechanisms may also be applicable in the new gTLDs.  And
substantial progress is being made on the famous marks issue.  CCDN and its
members believe that the status quo could and should be improved in all
these areas, but the progress toward a satisfactory environment for the
rollout of new gTLDs is quite remarkable and should not be belittled as an
effort to "impose substantial delays."  

Finally, CCDN wishes to call attention to the emerging issue of chartered
gTLDS.  When the ability to register a domain name is limited to entities
engaged in a certain kind of business or other activity, or meeting other
qualifications, very significant questions are raised which must be
carefully resolved.  Any chartered gTLD that is approved should promulgate
clear and specific rules about who is and is not entitled to register Second
Level Domains in that space, and about what activities are and are not
appropriate or acceptable on the corresponding sites.  Who decides these
questions, and how disputes about them may be expeditiously resolved, are
also questions that must be decided.  All this must be done before the
chartered gTLD opens its doors, not afterwards, when disputes and conflicts
have already arisen.  Rather than prolonging the now-familiar debate about
whether to open new gTLDs and how many, ICANN and the DNSO should devote
more attention to the process of setting guidelines for the establishment
and operation of potential new gTLDs, especially chartered gTLDs.  

Respectfully submitted,

Steven J. Metalitz
Counsel to CCDN
c/o Smith & Metalitz, L.L.P.
Suite 825
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20006-4604
Tel:  (202) 833-4198; Fax:  (202) 872-0546
Email:  metalitz@iipa.com



CCDN PARTICIPANTS:
American Film Marketing Association 
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Association of American Publishers
Broadcast Music, Inc.
Business Software Alliance
Interactive Digital Software Association
Motion Picture Association of America
National Music Publishers' Association
Recording Industry Association of America
Software and Information Industry Association


April 13, 2000