REGISTRY ABUSE POLICIES ICANN - Sydney 21 June 09 >>GREG AARON: Good morning, everyone. We're going to be getting started shortly. If you have your laptop, please do log in to Adobe Connect. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. All right. Good morning, we'll go ahead and get started. Glen, if you could, would you also like to begin the recording? >>GLEN DE SAINT GERY: Yes, thank you. >>GREG AARON: Thank you for coming to this meeting of the registration abuse policy working group. My name is Greg Aaron. I'm the group chair. We're going to be streaming this meeting live, and we also have participants who are joining remotely via teleconference. So what I'd like to do is we'll begin with a roll call. And Glen will assist us with that. What we'll do is we'll begin by going around the table. If you are a member of the working group, please introduce yourself and your affiliation. And then we'll discuss the agenda. So I'll start. I'm Greg Aaron. I'm with Afilias, and I'm your chair. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Marika Konings, ICANN staff. >>NACHO AMADOZ: Nacho Amadoz, dot CAT, member. >>ROD RASMUSSEN: Rod Rasmussen, Internet Identity, member. >>JEREMY HITCHCOCK: Jeremy Hitchcock, representing SSAC. I work for Dynamic Network Services. >>JAMES BLADEL: James Bladel, Go Daddy.com. >>RUDI VANSNICK: Rudi Vansnick, ALAC, EURALO. >>I'm not a member of the NomNS, and I'm not a member of the working group. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Evan Leibovitch from MARALO, ALAC. >>BEAU BRENDLER: Beau Brendler from ALAC. >>PAUL STAHURA: Paul Stahura from ENOM. >>RICHARD TINDAL: Richard Tindal from ENOM. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Mike Rodenbaugh, business constituency. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: Michael Young, Afilias, member. >>GRETCHEN OLIVE: Gretchen Olive, Corporation Service Company. >>FAISAL SHAH: Faisal Shah, Markmonitor. >>MARTIN SUTTON: Martin Sutton, HSBC, member. >>FRED FELMAN: Fred Felman, Markmonitor. >>MARGIE MILAM: Margie Milam, ICANN staff. >>GREG AARON: And, if you're joining via teleconference, can you acknowledge who you are and if you're with us. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services, Inc. And we're a member of the working group. >>GREG AARON: Thank you, George. Is there anyone else online? >>BARRY COBB: Yes. [Off microphone] Barry Cobb. >>ROLAND PERRY: Roland Perry. I'm online. >>GREG AARON: Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. Just a few logistics. If you've been acknowledged to speak, just press the button. When you're done, please remember to turn off your microphone. Only three can be active at a time. If you would like to speak, you can indicate it by raising your hand in Adobe Connect or just motioning if you're here live. We are slated to go for an hour and a half. This is a usual meeting of the working group. We'll be continuing our work from previous meetings. However, we have reserved the last 30 minutes for Q&A with the community. This is an open meeting, and we're going to take any questions that people may have. So last time we met we started working our way through our list of proposed issues. And just to recap, we did discuss registration of domain names or preregistration of domain names, predesignation of names for botnet command and control and malware use. Rod Rasmussen is considering whether he'll take the lead on drafting that section. >>ROD RASMUSSEN: I forgot about that. >>GREG AARON: And we also discussed name spinning. And the conclusion we came to on that one is it's an issue that can -- or a tool that can be used for innocent as well as potentially abusive use. And we're going to consider that perhaps as a subset of other issues. And -- Marika? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Did we have a volunteer for that one as well to start a definition process on that one? >>GREG AARON: We may get to it as a subset of the next topic. And, by the way, Marika has set up Wiki pages with our template as we start to draft material for all of these. So the next item on the list which you can see in Adobe Connect is cybersquatting. And the working definition that we have so far is as follows: "Trademark or variation in domain name. Domain bought/owned for the purpose of reselling or use in malicious activity." So I'd like to throw this open for discussion. Why is this on the list? I forget also offhand who had added it to the list. Does anyone recall? George has raised his hand. Go ahead, George. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I think it's from our original list. [Off microphone] Actually, we can't verify that. >>GREG AARON: He said maybe you had put it on your list. >>MARTIN SUTTON: I would suspect so, yes. But it seems a long time ago. >>GREG AARON: Let's begin with the basics. Why is it on the list, and what are some of the issues involved? George? Martin? >>MARTIN SUTTON: Personally, for me from a business perspective, it's been a major headache over the last number of years since I've been involved in brand abuse in my business. And some of the contributions to that, the AGP, at grace period, we've seen some movement on that. But we haven't seen any results, significant measures yet publicized to show any movement on that. But there's -- it's a broad issue, I believe, cybersquatting. >>GREG AARON: George, would you like to go ahead? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: [Off microphone] First, I don't like that definition. It doesn't really -- working group because by definition cybersquatting requires -- (Speaker off microphone). -- and part of the focus of this working group is to exclude items that require use of the domain. >>GREG AARON: Okay. Thank you, George. Beau? >>BEAU BRENDLER: I agree that it should be on here, but that the definition is overly broad. I have a very brief example of a small nonprofit organization who I'm trying to help out who is registered under dot org but also want to register dot com for itself. There's someone who has taken dot com and erected a link farm and actually tried to take steps to direct people away from this dot org. And the owner of the domain wants, you know, in the six-figure range for this. And the nonprofit is better off using its legal resources and its money to do what it needs to do, which is medical research. I absolutely think it needs to be here. It's important to consider it because this type of thing makes people think of ICANN as a dysfunctional entity. >>GREG AARON: Anyone else? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: This is Evan. I just add to what Beau said. When the opposition was suggested that this requires use, a domain that's being cybersquatted is there. It has the link farm. It has the park page. But it's being used for no intent that would create or offer new content to the public and is there literally just to practically tease a legitimate domain owner that the thing is there, but they can't have it. >>GREG AARON: Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Just more broadly, we could look, first of all, at the anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in the United States perhaps for some definitional help here. But, you know, more broadly, that law and the UDRP, other things designed to deal with cybersquatting are really consumer protection statutes under trademark law. They don't always involve link farms. They can involve anything, really, child porn being probably the worst case. But it's any sort of a registration of a term that correlates to another's trademark which is designed to steal traffic to -- that is seeking the owners of that mark. >>GREG AARON: James? >>JAMES BLADEL: First of all, I'd like to say -- I'd like to discuss this a little bit further and see the definition as well. I think that I share some of George's concerns that we're talking now about intent or motivations when registering a name. And that's going to be very difficult, I think, to incorporate into a definition, especially when we're talking about a policy. I agree with Mike that we can probably look at existing legislation and the UDRP for help in this area. But I think that we can always find some extreme examples. There's -- the vast majority of these are going to live in a gray area where we have two different competing ideas of what a string means. And I certainly wouldn't want to insert into any kind of a definition, something that would make a decision on which is the right interpretation of a particular string or which is more legitimate than another. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: We've been doing this for 10 years under the UDRP. So I don't really understand how anybody can claim with a straight face that we ought not be considering cybersquatting in this group. >>JAMES BLADEL: And to follow up, that's not exactly what I was saying, Mike. I just think that we have existing processes through the UDRP, and we should take a look at those when we're building a definition. >>GREG AARON: I'm going to recognize Roland Perry on the phone. >>ROLAND PERRY: I'm going to point out, like I did last call, I think we agreed that we were only going to look at abuse, which at the time of registration. And I think there are many, many (inaudible) of a domain that's been registered by somebody which becomes a cybersquatting domain maybe years afterwards when somebody else by coincidence decides that that domain has got their brand name in it. I just think we ought to recognize that it's not always a domain that's been registered originally for the purpose of becoming a cybersquatting domain. >>GREG AARON: George? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I think nobody is going to say cybersquatting isn't a problem. I think it's whether or not this working group is scoped to tackle that problem while some tackle every problem. (Inaudible) have a very specific mission with registration abuse not to solve domain abuse. And so from that perspective we should focus on that core mission. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: I agree with George on this one and James, too. >>FRED FELMAN: I think we see a lot of examples of systemic abuse of the domain name system at the time of registration with respect to cybersquatting. There are many instances where you'll see hundreds or thousands of names by one registrant attacking one particular brand name. And in some cases we see certain brand holders who have been attacked systemically. Verizon is a good example. And I think it would be important for us to continue to look at cybersquatting as a domain name registration abuse problem. >>GREG AARON: Why is Verizon a good example, for those who may not be familiar with it? >>FRED FELMAN: There's some famous lawsuits where registrars actually enabled the practice and actually abused the five-day grace period. Well-known lawsuit against Belgium domains, capital domains, and domain doorman, for example, where they were enabling the process of domain name abuse against them, Microsoft, and others. >>GREG AARON: Domain doorman and others were using tasting. Was that correct? >>FRED FELMAN: Along with cybersquatting. So it was both. >>GREG AARON: Yeah. I should mention, also, to a previous point that Martin said, we have not yet seen any formal analysis of the excess deletions fee policy, which went into effect a couple of months ago. And the GNSO did have on its list of things to do was to follow up on that and see what effect it was going to have. So I would suggest that we query them. Go ahead, Mike. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Craig Schwartz just put out a note on that, actually. First review, I think, after six months of the policy. But, basically, didn't say much because they still don't have the data from the registries, at least in enough quantity that he thought he could analyze. But I believe he said come later this year, he would have that. Maybe we can spur him to move that up a little bit. I don't know. But -- there is certainly data, because the policy has been in effect now for a year. The ICANN budget policy anyway. >>GREG AARON: Okay. Yeah, we're talking in this case about the new consensus policy. And that's been in effect for about two months now, I think. So why don't we take that as an action item to query staff and see what data is going to be collected. >>MARIKA KONINGS: I will post the link to the email that Craig Schwartz sent to the council at Adobe Room so people can have a look at that. >>MARGIE MILAM: I wanted to comment on the scope issue. As a group, we've been talking about registration at the point of registration. But that's not a limitation within the GNSO scope analysis. The group could expand its analysis to cover beyond initial registration. And, if you think about abuse, there's other aspects that might be implicated. You know, updates to WHOIS, for example, are changing and activities that happened after the point of registration. So I'm raising it only to tell you that that's not a GNSO scope issue. It's a decision that the group makes or doesn't make whether they want to pursue policies beyond registration. >>GREG AARON: George, you raised your hand? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I agree with the GNSO scope of the topic. But I disagree strongly with the work group that GNSO Council voted that authorized creation of the working group specifically said not to address the topic that incorporate GNSO. >>MARGIE MILAM: I'm going to look at the charter. If the group thinks the charter is too limited, you can go back and revise the charter. >>GREG AARON: We've had someone log into Adobe Connect as RAP. I'd ask you to log out and then log back in with a nonanonymous name. Thank you. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Sorry. that's me. When I try to go in, it says my request has been sent to an administrator that keeps denying it. >>GREG AARON: Because we didn't know who you were. Let me ask a question. We have the UDRP, which is designed specifically to deal with cybersquatting and provide a dispute resolution mechanism. Are we suggesting that another mechanism is needed? Why are we discussing the issue if we already have a mechanism? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Answer to your question is yes, another mechanism is needed. UDRP certainly has not functioned as a deterrent to cybersquatting in any resect, particularly once paper click systems started coming online five, six years ago. And then, of course, with the rise of domain tasting practices, cybersquatting became really somewhat of a pandemic. While we've ended domain tasting fairly effectively, I believe, unfortunately, that practice went on for years. And there are literally millions of infringing domain names sitting out there that brand owners are trying to deal with. And that's why we've seen, for example, in the new TLD process, obviously, a lot of outcry about dealing with trademark issues before we launch new TLDs. And that's resulted in the IRT recommendation for a rapid suspension policy, which, certainly, this group ought to be considering as potentially applicable to existing TLD registries. >>GREG AARON: Other comments? George? >> GEORGE KIRIKOS: I agree that cybersquatting (off microphone) I think we file a formal process on UDRP. And that needs to be authorized by GNSO Council. And that is our procedure. And the URS, just as a side note, I think is a way to go around the GNSO and support the URL. >>BEAU BRENDLER: I agree another mechanism is necessary. I don't have a prescription for it. But the last two suggestions, I think, are good, especially if you consider a situation in which the particular domain is not one that anyone else would want but was registered by someone else in a basic attempt to try to extort, I think we need -- I think the prohibitive costs and time of the UDRP, as it exists now, are very prohibitive for small organizations and regular human beings. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: I think our time is limited. And it's -- we should concentrate on issues around abuse that aren't being concentrated on by other parts within ICANN. >>PHIL CORWIN: On the URS and UDRP, I think it just confirms what I've been saying to hear suggestions that before it's even been adopted or go through proper process, that it should be applied to new gTLDs. And it's ironic the URS would do nothing about the existing cybersquatting. What's needed -- and I do believe it's outside the scope of anything this group can do -- is a process to look at the UDRP after 10 years of use and look at it from all perspectives, not just trademark owners but registrants who have many problems with it and see increasing abuse from their side as well and get fundamental UDRP reform so we have uniform policies across all new TLDs, new as well as existing. But, again, I think that's a much bigger job and much more complicated job than this group is charged with doing. >>GREG AARON: I've been reminded to have folks identify themselves when they speak so we have the transcript. >>PHIL CORWIN: Phil Corwin. >>GREG AARON: Thanks, Phil. >>FRED FELMAN: Fred Felman, Markmonitor. While the IRT has done some significant and good work with respect to the new gTLDs, there is no abuse in new gTLDs currently. I would say that there is, as Mike mentioned, millions of cases with respect to cybersquatting and registration abuse currently in the existing legacy TLDs. And, while I trust the IRT to move forward to get something there, I think it would be good work by this organization to try to come up with a mechanism within the legacy space that perhaps models what's being done in the IRT but actually corrects a long standing abuse problem where people actually do have issues. >>GREG AARON: Michael? >>MICHAEL YOUNG: I guess I'm really concerned when we use the word model like after the IRT when I'm very, very disturbed by the IRT basically bypassing the PDP process. So I really wouldn't support anything that looks to the IRT as an example although I agree with all your other points. >>GREG AARON: Mike Rodenbaugh? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I mean, all we're saying is we use it as an example, it's been done, there's been a lot of hard work, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of work put into coming up with that very detailed proposal. There's no reason why we can't take a look at it and decide whether it can be changed or just adopted entirely, perhaps, but certainly whether it could be changed and then adapted to deal with this longstanding, very evident problem. It's clearly within scope of this working group to do that. >>GREG AARON: James? >>JAMES BLADEL: Yeah, I agree, I think, with Michael that the URS and the IRT is something that is currently proposed and has not gone through the entire process so it's worthy of discussion but we shouldn't be using that as a -- looking to extend that when it's never been applied or adopted but if I could bring the conversation back a little bit to the definition, as we've got a lot of topics kind of going around and I notice there's two parts of the definition, as it currently reads, with cyber squatting as a domain is bought for the purpose of reselling or use in malicious activity. And I think implied in that language is some sort of future intent, and I'm just trying to make sure that we have something that's workable that we can talk about and I'm trying to understand how we can craft a definition that doesn't -- isn't predicated on knowing what someone is going to intend to do in the future and I just wanted to put that out for discussion if we can modify the definition to eliminate that variable or that unknown. >>GREG AARON: All right, let's open that up for discussion, then. Are you proposing -- are you proposing that the issue of intent be removed from the definition? >>JAMES BLADEL: And this is James, by the way, I'm sorry. I don't know, I don't necessarily have an alternate proposal at this point. I'm just pointing out that that is going to be problematic if we were to try to use that definition to, then, build out any sort of deliberations on what a policy or what a policy recommendation could look like. We need to understand what the -- what the test or what the criteria or boundaries would be around knowing when a registration comes through a system, what the registrant's intent for use of that would be. >>GREG AARON: Okay, so you're identifying an issue of when someone tries to make that registration as opposed to a post-registration dispute process? Which is what the URS is. >>RICHARD TINDAL: Everyone's looking at me. I agree with -- oh, my name is Richard Tindal and you don't know when the name's registered what the intent's going to be. I can register richard.com, that's my name, it happens to be trademarked, there's a trademark for Richard but when I register the name no one knows what I'm going to do with the name so I don't think I'm either infringing rights or cybersquatting at that point, maybe I'm going to infringe that trademark for Richard but I haven't done it, I've potentially got legitimate uses. >>JAMES BLADEL: And alternatively, I could register richardtindal.com because I'm a huge fan of your work and want to set up a Web site in attribute to that, but you don't know when I submit the actual stream through to a registration system of what my intent is -- what the intended purpose is and it says in the definition "for use in malicious activity." So does that mean that for use in a nonmalicious or -- or possibly even a beneficial activity is not considered within cybersquatting? I'd just like to work on this definition a little bit before we spend a lot of time talking about scope issues and things like that, I know that that can take us offtrack for a while. >>GREG AARON: Okay. George has his hand raised. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: Continue to (inaudible) but let me work on the definition. It's just a horrendous definition because, as people know, almost every dictionary word in the English language has a trademark of some sort just in the United States and if you consider all of the world, the countries of the world, if you look at dot com, the 80 million domains probably 75% or more would have a trademark in it so I don't know how that part of the definition could ever hold. Also people could definitely register domain names that are dictionary words that are totally in different classes of use. A trademark holder and be perfectly safe. I hold seeds.com, for example, like vegetable seeds or, you know, venture capital seed companies, that nature, perfect generic use. I think there's some trademark and some unsecure category of cosmetics or something that nobody knows that well. Obviously, the trademark holder does but it's totally irrelevant to the purposes that I own the domain. The second part of the dough names domain bot owns for the purpose of reselling like a buy domains, one of the large e domain holders in the world all their domains are on sale perhaps not in a (inaudible) activity so I don't know how you modify the definition to take that into account, obviously, the malicious activity part may or may not be related to cybersquatting either. >>GREG AARON: Roland Perry has his hand raised. >>ROLAND PERRY: Yes, again, based on something I heard on the last call -- >>GREG AARON: Roland, can you speak up, please. We can't hear you. >> ROLAND PERRY -- would have rights in the name, even though that name is not trademarked anywhere. >>GREG AARON: All right, let me ask a question. A lot of this has to do with intent. And am I hearing that intent cannot be discerned at the time of the registration? Are we talking about an issue that can only be settled after the registration takes place and with the discussion with the intent of the registrant? Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: I'm moving because it's going to be a long answer. My name is Paul Stahura. It's a tricky question. You know, you could say, well, this person has a million other registrations, and two of these were in a UDRP or all of them were in a UDRP and so by definition -- or, you know, by implication he's a cybersquatter so therefore any new registrations he does, you know, are going to be bad intent. So, you know, you could maybe use some history of the people and imply that, you know, if this guy committed murder four times, you know, and he had four wives and each wife got killed maybe the next wife he's going to murder and so -- but I don't think that that line of reasoning makes sense, you know, just because a guy committed murder four times doesn't mean the next person he's going to meet he's going to kill. But you could make a bunch of implications, that's why it's like seductive affirmative to say, well, we could guess what the person's intent is before he registers his next name. It's like that move movie where they could kind of predict the future of what crimes are going to happen next. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: "Minority Report." >>PAUL STAHURA: "Minority Report," yeah. So anyway, that's why I think it's a tough, tough, tricky question. >>GREG AARON: Mike Rodenbaugh. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I agree, it can certainly be a difficult question in many cases. In many other cases it's not. Many courts have had no problem at all presuming bad faith given that a mark so closely correlates to a famous trademark. Also, you can certainly discern from patterns at that time, for example, when guys are registering thousands of names at a time, all of them infringing famous brands, hundreds infringing one brand, you can certainly discern from that pattern at that time that it is in bad faith. >>GREG AARON: Okay, Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: Still more trickiness. You know, just because you register a lot of domain names doesn't mean you're a cybersquatter on the next one. I kind of see your point on the other, it's -- even if you registered many domain names and you were a convicted cybersquatter, I still don't believe that the next name you register -- you have to check one each, one case by case. Whether you infringe the mark, maybe you all of a sudden had, you know, rights to use that other trademark, who knows? That's why I think it's a case-by-case basis. And it's really difficult to use a prior behavior of whoever's registering the names and it's even difficult to find out who the other registrant was, you've got to relate their past registration history with their present name that's being registered, it's difficult. >>GREG AARON: So for you it's an issue of due process, basically? >>PAUL STAHURA: I'm not sure what that means because I'm not a law but I think so, yes. >>GREG AARON: I just play one on the TV, so -- [ Laughter ] >>FRED FELMAN: I think this is a very interesting line of conversation that Paul has brought up, I think it's actually kind of an important thing to discuss is recidivist behavior because the Internet apparently has no memory and no one does account for that. If I'm a serial drunk driver, the state has no problem taking away my driver's license. If I'm a serial child molester, I'm certainly not allowed to be around children. So it begs the question if I'm a serial domain-name abuser or infringer, what access should I have to the domain-naming system and should there be some memory in the system to actually allow people to be barred from misbehavior or at least the presumption of guilt if they have a continuing pattern of this behavior. >>PHIL CORWIN: Well, following up on that thought, and I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying, but you -- >>PAUL STAHURA: Say your name. >>PHIL CORWIN: Phil Corwin. To implement such a system would require the creation of a vast database that was accessible to all registrars and would also require a system that would somehow be able to ferret out or indicate, given that malicious or infringing individuals might well, if they're into abuse, be registering through all kinds of corporate shells and different names, I don't know, you know, you created this data how would you discern if they just created a new false name using another stolen credit card number, I mean, how do you create this vast policing system that registrars would have to reference and act upon at the time of an electronic application to register a domain name and what would it cost? >>GREG AARON: Fred? >>FRED FELMAN: Actually, I wasn't saying at the time of registration, I was saying perhaps at the point of a dispute that the presumption of guilt be upon the person who has some recidivist behavior because you can identify someone once it gets to some sort of adjudicative basis, and it doesn't require a database, a huge database, in fact, there's already a database that WIPO maintains with respect to the -- to the folks who have been prosecuted in UDRP and all those decisions exist. And, for example, if there were precedence for the URS similarly, and then we also spoke of the IRT's work with respect to an intellectual property clearinghouse over the last days. This would be an opportunity to actually identify brand holders or rights holders who abuse the system as well because I think equally people who abuse that process should not have access to it. >>GREG AARON: Mike R? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I would just point out that Nominet in the U.K. does have a system in place to essentially presume guilt of people who have been found guilty, for lack of a better word, three times under their procedure. Of course, what Phil Corwin says is absolutely correct, the system can be gamed so easily it's almost impossible to really make an effective rule here, especially in the era of proxy registrations. >>PHIL CORWIN: Yeah, well, I agree with that, but I think what we're talking about -- first I thought we were.talking About preventing a registration at the initiation but now we're talking about somehow sanctioning bad actors like the drunk driver, you drive drunk three times, your driver's license is taken away you've committed infringement and been found guilty of violating the UDRP X numbers of times -- number of times, you're barred from further ever registering a domain name or some period but how, then, do you enforce that just as people who have their licenses taken away continue to drink and drive, how are you going to prevent people with ill intent from registering in some other way under some false name, with a corporate shell or proxy registration? And I think these are legitimate issues, but I think they all speak to a process of discussing fundamental UDRP reform based on problems that everyone's -- various parties are having with the existing UDRP which is a major undertaking and I think outside the scope of this group which as I understood was to look at abuse which did not arise solely from the use of the name after registration but somehow rose from abuse in the registration process itself. >>GREG AARON: Okay. George, you've been posting some notes in the chat. Did you want to make those public? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: Oh, I was saying that it's better to leave those matters to the could you tell us, you know, a court can order, you know, a certain individual to not be able to register domain names. I think that's (inaudible) the working group even though hardened criminals after 20 years get out of jail, they can get a telephone number. You know, a domain name is becoming kind of like a telephone number in many ways so it should be left up to the courts, in my opinion. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: I just want to succinctly say, it's back to the definition, I agree with James, it has to do with intent. Even if you could tell the intent of the person that he's got bad intent, you know, before he makes a name registration, even if you could tell that, somehow read his mind or whatever or look at his past history, it's really -- I agree with Phil -- it's really a -- it's a tough practical issue to implement that system and somehow prevent that guy from making that registration. >>FRED FELMAN: I guess -- I guess it is impossible to judge intent at the time of registration. And perhaps, you know, that -- we are bound to look at registration, but it doesn't seem like we're bound to look at what their remedies are to provide a disincentive for abuse of registration. And we can look at all types of things that actually might stop that, I don't think we should limit ourselves to being in the moment stopping that registration and judging intent at that second because it's impossible to do, as everyone says, but yet it is a registration abuse and it can often be discerned by an objective eye after the fact. So I think it actually is important for us to look at that and actually figure out a disincentive that may -- you know, may not apply at the time of registration, it may apply post-registration. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: I think you're back to the URS and possibly reformation of the UDRP in that consideration and sure, it could be gamed, but it's worthwhile considering having an element like that in those processes where, you know, three strikes and you're out, I think we just have to be realistic to know that that could be worked around many ways but you do what you can so that's probably reasonable to consider a mechanism in those processes. I don't know if that's in our scope to develop those processes, but certainly we could comment on them. >>GREG AARON: . >>GREG AARON: Any other comment? George. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: Also I think there is some interaction with other elements of registration abuse like people who cybersquat tend to use bad WHOIS, so there might be other things further down on this list where you can attack the cybersquatting problem indirectly just by using the WHOIS, just like, you know, you've got people on tax evasion charges who are criminals, find a way to deal with these problems, but attacking the direct issue. >>GREG AARON: So it looks like we have some diversity of opinion here about whether this is something that the group is empowered to look at. Whether this is something we should look at and what the outlines of it are, is that a fair assessment of where we are, James? >>JAMES BLADEL: And I think before we can answer those questions, we have to really tighten up this definition so that we understand exactly where the boundaries are and what we're talking about and that will help us guide us through those other two questions. >>GREG AARON: Although at this point we don't have any specific suggestions about the definition. All right, let's look at that definition again, then. "Trademark (or variation) in domain name. Domain bought/owned for the purpose of reselling or use in malicious activity." One way we could look at this is is this definition parallel or equivalent to other relevant definitions such as what's in the UDRP or other laws. Go ahead, Paul. >>PAUL STAHURA: Could we maybe put the definition on the other screen so we can have it up there all the time. >>GREG AARON: Can we do that. >>MARIKA KONINGS: We can put it up in Adobe Connect. >>GREG AARON: Richard, go ahead. >>RICHARD TINDAL: What was just the reselling part of that definition, is that a standalone -- was the reselling phrase a standalone component or is that sort of tied to another concept in there. >>GREG AARON: At the moment it says "for the purpose of reselling or use in malicious activity." That's what it says. And again, you can see this if you're in Adobe Connect so -- >>MARIKA KONINGS: I'll put it up there. >>RICHARD TINDAL: So what's the intent there, do we think, of the reselling, what's being got at in that regard? Because it's okay, I think, to buy and sell things. >>GREG AARON: I don't know what the genesis of the particular language was. I assume it means that someone objected to people registering infringing names and then trying to sell them back to the mark owner, for example. >>RICHARD TINDAL: I think the challenge there is that I think there are very few trademark names that -- where you can't foresee other uses of the name. There are many trademark names that have got many other legitimate uses. >>GREG AARON: The other part -- go ahead, James, I'm sorry. >>JAMES BLADEL: I think that's a good point, Richard. Also wanted to point out that many of us were in the discussions yesterday with the -- some of the other workshops and some of the other meetings and when we say "trademarks" are we also extending that to include geographic names? >>GREG AARON: Okay, George? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I think the only way you could actually modify this definition to still be within this working group's scope would be if you actually had a very famous trademark, the so-called undefined, you know, universal famous mark list that nobody actually ever has so, for example, every domain name containing Verizon because it was a coined famous term would probably, you know, be covered. But that's essentially creating a new reserve list that I think would be (inaudible) especially given the way that the IRT went about it. >>PHIL CORWIN: Well, just to -- Phil Corwin -- just to add to what George said. Even then there are exceptions, at least in the United States there's a recognized fair use that you can register a name, say, that says "brand name sucks," to comment negatively about the activities of that business activity and that's protected free speech. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I agree with you. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: And even if somebody said it, I think it was Fred he had -- as somebody said, I think it was Fred, we had this tasting problem supposedly which we stopped but yet there's -- to quote Fred -- millions of names still registered in com. And I don't think -- I don't see how a list could, at this point, ferret out or stop those names from being registered because they're already registered so creating a famous marks list or some kind of blocks list I think wouldn't help what Fred thinks is the majority of the problem which is the name's already registered in com. >>GREG AARON: Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I don't, I didn't hear Fred or anybody else suggesting that there should be a famous marks list here. I mean, there already is a list, it's called a trademark register in lots of other countries. Simply you have to look at everything case by case. I definitely agree with Paul there. But you can tell in any given case, whether there is intent to defraud or intent to ride on the good will of a famous mark. But do have to look at it case by case and I don't hear anybody saying differently. >>GREG AARON: George. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: Almost every mark holder thinks their mark is famous. Just because it's registered doesn't mean it is, though. And often you'll see, you know, marks get challenged after the fact given the example that I mentioned in the IRT work group, somebody tried to register the word "bling" in Canada in the class of jewelry, dictionary definition, we fought it and caused it to be abandoned, the person to give up their application, the intellectual property office would give it till it got to the advertising page but trademarks do go down in flames from time to time. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: Back to the definition, now that it's up there, I can see it. Domain bought/owned for the purpose of reselling. "That's part of the definition of abuse, do I get that right. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: That's the proposed definition. >>PAUL STAHURA: That's crazy. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: We disagree, obviously. >>PAUL STAHURA: ENOM, there's a lot of other registrars that have a lot of resellers and most of our names are resold. So whether -- that's just accuracy, I don't know how else to say it. >>GREG AARON: I'm wondering if that language is imprecise. I don't think that was probably the intent because reselling is an accepted part of life. As far as I'm concerned. I think it was -- I think the intent was probably trying to resell it to the brand owner. >>PAUL STAHURA: I think I see what you're saying. So maybe we need to look at that ACPA because I think it uses some language like "trafficking," then the definition of "trafficking" is really well defined. So "reselling," I think, yeah, we need to get rid of that. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Yeah, I just pulled up the definition from the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and they said "cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the good will of a trademark belonging to someone else." >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: I'm looking further how Congress defined this in the report around that. Basically, said cybersquatters were those who register well-known names as domain names in order to extract payment from the rightful owners of the marks or register well-known marks as domain names, warehouse those marks with hopes of selling them to the highest bidder or register well-known marks to (inaudible) consumer confusion by misusing the name to divert traffic, or target distinctive marks to defraud consumers including via phishing or counterfeiting, other ways." So I'll post this to the Adobe Connect, but I think that's a useful further explanation. >>JOHN BERRYHILL: John Berryhill. And Mike, you'll notice that before each instance of the word "marks" in what you recited there were qualifiers such as "well-known" or "distinctive." Not every registered mark is inherently distinctive, not every registered mark is well- known. So the fact that a mark is registered, like the word "hotels" in India is a registered trademark, it was used in a dispute policy to obtain the domain name hotels.in. But there are qualifiers in that language even with respect to marks. >>GREG AARON: Thank you, John. I'm going to remind everybody that at this point the discussion is open to members of the working group. Afterwards we'll have additional time for additional discussion, thank you. All right, so go ahead. >>PHIL CORWIN: I just want to note, I think the ACPA is a good reference point but I think it's also a reminder that ICANN's role as technical manager/coordinator of the DNS and its tools which are basically, contractual are limited and they're -- there are cases where ICANN has to recognize that problems need to be addressed through national laws or international treatises and the ACPA, so far as I know, I'm glad to hear if it's otherwise has, while not effective entirely in shutting down cybersquatting though it's certainly been used against that with good results, but brand owners has been quite effective in terminating the practice of registering famous individual names or corporate names and trying to extort large sums of money from the rightful holders of those names to purchase them. So there's a case where a national law that ICANN would have no ability to put in place through UDRP has been quite effective in shutting down a very disreputable practice. >>GREG AARON: By the way, we're coming up at the end of the first hour of this meeting. It seems to me that we've got certainly some definitional work to do. I would suggest that we take some time offline to work on this definition. We've had a lot of input as to whether this is in scope or not. I don't think we're going to solve those problems today. I think maybe what we ought to do, concentrate on first, is define exactly what we're talking about. Mike? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: That's fine, I agree with that, I don't think that's as difficult as we're making it. If people really are going to continue arguing that this is potentially out of scope and I guess as a council liaison I ought to just go back to the council and clarify the scope. Because as the person who led the charter on this issue, led the, you know, led the request for issues report et cetera there's really no question in my mind that the council's intent was to look at cybersquatting, you know -- that's the top of the list of the things the council was intending for this group to look at. >>GREG AARON: Well, and I don't think, Mike, we're even -- even at this point we're discussing whether it's in or out of scope but we're also trying to figure out what we're actually talking about, there are issues of intent and so forth. Go ahead, James. >>JAMES BLADEL: I agree, Mike. And maybe since this is -- and forgive me for not being familiar with the process, but since this is not yet a full PDP, then scope issues, maybe we can just put an asterisk by them but not use them to limit the conversation, you know, and that could be a determining factor for the real PDP that may or may not result from this work but I agree with Mike to the degree that it shouldn't be restrictive at this point because we're not in the PDP process yet. >>GREG AARON: That's on that? I think what we ought to do is tighten up our definition of what we've got so we're all discussing the same thing. Now, the issue of whether cybersquatting is in or not, I'm happy to leave that open, myself. I kind of agree with James. Which is that we can discuss it, you know, over time. Go ahead. >>FRED FELMAN: I was also going to suggest, in addition to advocating the increase of scope to the GNSO Council through Mike, Mike and I could work together on tightening up this definition if -- which we're happy to do. >>GREG AARON: Okay, I'm going to ask for volunteers to put the work in the working group. Fred, are you volunteering? >>FRED FELMAN: Yeah, I am. >>GREG AARON: Okay, Mike, are you volunteering. >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: Sure. >>GREG AARON: James, are you volunteering. >>JAMES BLADEL: (Nods head affirmatively.) >>GREG AARON: Okay. Mike. >>PAUL STAHURA: I'm volunteering. >>GREG AARON: Mike Young, Paul, Phil. >>FRED FELMAN: It's unanimous. >>MARIKA KONINGS: Just a question, because as I've done for the other abuse categories, I've created a separate Wiki page as we discussed last time that might facilitate people working together so I can do the same thing for this issue, list some of the notes that we've discussed today and send it in to everyone so you have an opportunity to work together in that space so everyone can see that at the same time. Would that work? >>GREG AARON: I think, absolutely. So we have Fred, Mike Y, Mike R, Phil, Paul, and James, is that correct? So that's going to be our subteam to work on this definition of cybersquatting. We'll set up a Wiki page where you guys can start to bash that out. And I would like to ask you guys to see how far you can get in the next two weeks because we'll have a next meeting in two weeks and so -- okay. All right, we're at the top of the hour. And what we'd said originally was we were going to go for an hour and then we'd open up the meeting to questions from the community about the work we've done thus far and so I'm going to bring the discussion of the cybersquatting to a close for now and we'll pick it up in the next meeting. So I'd like to open the floor to any questions from the community about the work we've been doing thus far. Is there anyone on the -- go ahead, James. >>JAMES BLADEL: Greg, maybe, and just a suggestion, perhaps we could provide an overview of where this is in the process, the drafting team that came before it, the PDP that we're anticipating will come after it, and what the purpose of this working group is and what its output will be and what -- time line and things like that, that might help set some context. >>GREG AARON: Okay. For those of you who are not familiar with the working group, it was formed at the request of the GNSO Council. It has a fairly broad mandate, which you can see on our homepage which is linked to -- off the GNSO Web site. Basically what we started with was a list of suggestions about potentially abusive issues in the registration process, especially. We also were asked to come up with a definition of abuse which -- and we have a working definition of what that is right now, it's also posted. I won't read it right now. We've been asked -- this is, by the way, a pre-PDP working group which means it's a way of getting the group together to discuss issues and then make some decisions. The recommendations that this group can come up with can be very varied. They can be recommendations for PDPs, they can be suggestions for best practices or a variety of other things. So this is basically -- this group is a mechanism for the community to hash out some issues and then perhaps take a few of them forward in various ways. Do we have any -- do we have any questions from the conference line? Any questions from the audience? >>MARIKA KONINGS: Just maybe to note that this group has a dedicated Wiki page so for anyone interested in follow the discussions and the documents this group is working on if you go to the GNSO homepage on the left-hand side you have a link to the Wiki there. So encourage you to have a look there and see what's on the discussion. >>GREG AARON: I'm not seeing any questions, live or remotely. Again, I'll make one more call. No? Okay. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Sorry, I've got some concerns but I'll just ask to be formally joined to the working group. I guess at least from the constituency that I'm working with which is the North American region of at large I do think there's a general perception that purely speculative use and acquisition of domains without any intent to use it for content is indeed considered a form of squatting and abuse. There are probably some that would disagree with that. I don't think it has to be targeted to trademark owners. Even generic names can be squatted by somebody who has no intent of using it for any purpose than resale. So at least for the general public, there's a wide belief of squatting, that's what intruder, than is being thought of here. >>RICHARD TINDAL: So I think, yeah, I think in some cases there could be -- I could see a concern where someone bought up all the property. So, I mean, if we use the analogy of land, you know, so someone's bought up a bunch of land and they're not letting other people use it. So you're allowed to buy land. You're allowed to keep it and do what you want, of course. You don't have to use the land anyway, typically. But the point I wanted to make -- so I kind of see the argument you're making. But the point I would make in response is I think with domain names that is a consequence simply of an artificial constraint of supply. I think, while we have artificially constrained availability of domain names with a limited number of TLDs, maybe that problem is going to occur. I think that, if we have marketplace availability of domain names, I don't think it's going to be as much of a problem that someone wants to buy up a bunch of land and maybe wait a while before they use it. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: On kind of to that point, I think if -- I think it's a mistake to assume that our group's purpose in any which way or form is to challenge a legitimate secondary marketplace for a domain usage. Eight or nine years ago, yeah, people would register domain names, and it would go to a parking page. I think you would be hard pressed to find many domain names that go to parking pages. Today they go through PPC sites. So, as long as they're not infringing on somebody else's, you know, rights to that name, I don't know that we should be extending our definition of abuse or cybersquatting or any of that beyond a very focused scope. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: Just like use is tricky, nonuse is even trickier. You know, I think that if somebody buys a name, they don't have to -- why should they have to use it? They can sit on it forever. They can sell it to somebody else in the future. I mean, I honestly don't see how buying a name -- that's not infringing anybody's rights, even if the name is trademarked. Andrew, for example, in the U.S. has I think eight trademarks on it. The word "Andrew." If I want to get Andrew.com and just sit on it and never use it, that's just my -- I should have that right. So I think nonuse is not an abuse. >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Then we have a fundamental difference between what you're thinking and what I see in the general public. And, if ICANN is to address the needs of the public and not just the contracted parties, it needs to take that diversity into account. >>GREG AARON: George? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I saw this discussion on slashdot recently when people were talking about cybersquatting and had really weird views, in my opinion, of what cybersquatting is. Basically, a lot of people feel there's an entitlement they can use a domain name better than anybody else. And, if somebody isn't willing to give that name to them for free, they cry cyber squatter or abuse. There's one great response I saw to it that, if your business model is so dependent on a very specific domain, particularly one domain, there really is something wrong with your business model. You don't see Google being unsuccessful because they couldn't own search.com. Or you don't see Yahoo. Same reason. Just think of a different domain name. >>GREG AARON: Richard? >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: It would ruin the economic system if everybody who felt they were entitled to certain property seized it whether the current owner is using it or not or using it in a manner that somebody else doesn't approve of. >>RICHARD TINDAL: So it's Evan, yeah? Evan. So, even if we were to agree, I think, there's a philosophical difference here already about whether something should be allowed to be bought or kept and must be developed. Even if we get past that argument, there's just an incredible practical issue now of okay, I bought Andrew.com and you're telling me I have to use it. What's use going to constitute? I'll put up a web page. I'll put up a picture of Andrew. I mean, how are you going to decide that my use is now, you know -- you're going to have to work thresholds of valuable use before you decide -- I think that's an impossible task. I don't think you can ever work out whether my use is going to be adequate enough versus -- I think George mentioned -- we're getting into an argument about who has better use of an asset. >>GREG AARON: Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: I agree with Richard. Just like nonuse is not an abuse, a little bit of good use is not an abuse compared to even better use. So just because I'm using a name that you have -- you know, I want to use your house to cure cancer, you know, that doesn't mean your use of your house, you know -- my use trumps your use. So, even if the public, from your perception, kind of has this philosophical thought in mind about use, they're wrong. Just like, you know, in the United States back in the whatever, 1800s, the public was -- you know, in some parts of the country it was all about slavery. Well, they were wrong. So I think that better use does not trump some use. You know? Just because somebody has a domain name and puts up a parking site, you say that's not content. I say it is. Those -- those ads are content. Just like Google. I go to Google.com. I type in a string. Whose content is that? Is that content? That's my content that they scraped from my site. And then, next to that content that's mine, they've got a bunch of ads. So, you know, if you say my ads are not content, then you'd have to say Google's ads are not content. >>GREG AARON: Evan? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Right at the beginning of this meeting you said you can't have abuse without use. And so you're basically going back to that. And you're saying simply because you can't -- or are unwilling to draw a line between what constitutes use and what constitutes abuse, then there should be absolutely no prohibition on it. I fundamentally reject that. There are ways to do it. I mean, even the rights holders amongst us understand the concept of a trademark. If you don't use it, you lose it. It becomes a generic word. There are existing things that are being done that, basically, say in society, there are regulations that, if you want to protect something, you need to make a certain adequate use of it. It's been done before. And, if there is to be an acknowledgment by this group that you're genuinely addressing what the public believes to be abuse of this system, then it has to be addressed. And simply dismissing it by saying you're wrong is not going to make it go away. >>GREG AARON: Evan, let me see if I understand your view. You're saying that purely speculative acquisition of domains is a form of squatting or abuse. Is that correct? So, if I buy a name and it does not infringe upon someone's rights, doesn't conflict with the trademark, for example. Are you saying that's abuse? >>EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Yeah. I'm totally delinking this from name ownership. Even squatting on a generic word and not allowing it to be used for any purpose that's directly linked to that generic word is a form of abuse. It's not simply attached to trademarks. It can be city names. It can be persons' names. It can be other things that don't have trademarks associated with it that are still being done speculatively for the purposes of not adding content to the Internet but simply trading identities as commodities. >>GREG AARON: I'm going to take Richard first then Phil then Michael and then George. Go ahead, Richard. >>RICHARD TINDAL: I guess I'm back to the previous point, practicality here. Who's going to decide and under what criteria what represents a reasonable use? If I've grabbed some name that I want to keep for speculation -- I'm a speculator, and you're telling me I've got to use it, okay, I'm going to use it. I'm going to do something with it. Who's going to judge whether or not that's acceptable and under what criteria? >>GREG AARON: Phil? >>RICHARD TINDAL: It's a question for everyone, but I think for you, particularly. >>PHIL CORWIN: Can I jump in here. And you can -- I'll give you more to respond to. This is a very interesting intellectual discussion we're having here. I think the starting point should be that, whatever the opinion of any individual or group of individuals right now registering a noninfringing -- a name that's not infringing and not confusingly similar and using it in bad faith is not cybersquatting under the current rules. So it's -- apparently, there's some individual or groups who think the rules should be changed. Now we're going to change the rules. You could say well, you can't register -- if you register any name within X period, you must develop it in some way. You must have some -- it can't just not -- that's the first -- the lowest level of nonuse is it doesn't resolve. And you could say that's not allowed. I'm not sure what the argument would be for that, since you're paying your registration fee. I guess the argument would be well, someone can put a better use. But there's 21 gTLDs and over 100 ccTLDs. And someone could probably get the same name somewhere else and develop it anyway they want. And I'm not -- and, if we're going to have hundreds of new TLDs shortly, it's not like there's a limitation on land. The land is fairly infinite now, and it's getting bigger for any given string anyone can think of. And then, if you're going to say all right, what use? It's got to resolve. Some people say we don't like parking pages. Some people would argue that parking pages are useful to consumers and having a generic word and having links, as you go to the page, and having links to providers of products and services related to that generic word is every bit as legitimate as typing the same word into Google and getting pretty much the same links, especially since the links are probably being provided by Google or Yahoo at the parked page. It's just direct search versus search engine search. But let's say ICANN adopted a policy, no, there must be some original content. Well, actually, the marketplace is going there already because PPC revenue is down and people who owned domain portfolios are developing their names because it's a better use. But, you know, in the land analogy, finally, at what point are you going to say it's good enough? Because I can make an argument that the Queen Victoria building across the street is not the best economic use of that piece of land in downtown Sydney, that there should be an 80- story skyscraper there. It would be much more profitable. But lots of other people would say that would be a terrible thing to knock down that beautiful old building and put up another glass skyscraper. So you start going down the path of saying you've got to have something and deciding what the something is. The marketplace, whatever ICANN -- at a certain point a lot of the same individuals say that's too high a standard. We can't afford that level of development. You're going too far. So what's the point going to be? What process is it going to set up? Who's going to bring the protests? What process is going to decide whether the use is sufficient? And where are you going to draw the line? I'm just thinking, if we're going to go down this path -- and I think, again, it's outside this group's scope, because it's not infringement or squatting under the current rules, you're getting into a very interesting and difficult discussion of both how you -- what you're going to require and what enforcement mechanism you're going to have for that and what is the justification since -- with new TLDs coming, there's really pretty much an infinite supply of potential names that's going to be available. And, unless you're trying to capture type and traffic of dot com, it doesn't really matter which of the new TLDs you're at. You can probably find one that's very appropriate for your business and that serves your needs. >>GREG AARON: Okay. I think Paul and Michael are next. Go ahead. >>MICHAEL YOUNG: I'm going to put my technologist hat on for a second. Most of you know I have a strong operational background. And in the absence of a Steve Crocker or John Klensin to remind us all of the birth of the Internet and DNS and what it was all really about, I'm going to remind everybody that DNS came along before web pages did, long before. And the purpose of DNS was actually to identify machines offering services -- or to find those machines and the original services, had nothing to do with the World Wide Web that we all seem focused on. In fact, I have many domain names that are listening on various ports and don't offer any web services whatsoever. Would you say they're in use? Would you define that as a nonuse? I think that we shouldn't go there. Period. >>GREG AARON: James, I saw your hand raised. And then we'll go to Beau. >>JAMES BLADEL: So it's an excellent point, Michael. And then I wanted to touch on some of the -- it's a really interesting exchange, I think, between Phil and then Evan as well. And being from the Midwest, there's a really great area of farmland that we're going to turn into a reservoir. And all the land developers have their beachfront property all mapped out. But there's a little old lady who won't sell her land. And it just reminds me of that story that all these people are waiting for that particular nonuse of that land to end so that they can move in with the bulldozers. But I think it raises a good property. And I would speculate that one mechanism to determine what the best use for a name is is the auction system. We do that for wireless spectrums. We're talking about a component of that in the DAG for new gTLDs. Letting the market determine what the most appropriate or what the best use is by assigning values to that and sorting out the bidders from the various contending parties, I think, is one approach that allows that question to be settled and that judgment between who has the better idea or the more supported or beneficial idea. So I just wanted to put that out on the table as one possible mechanism that can sort out these use versus better abuse issues. And -- okay. >>GREG AARON: Beau's next. >>BEAU BRENDLER: I'm just concerned that we're getting a little bit out of scope here when we sort of allude to purported arguments that consumers benefit from PPC pages where they might end up after they perhaps type in a URL incorrectly and then follow a link that leads them to some page that downloads malware onto their machine. I mean, I've been in consumer advocacy for 10 years. And I've never heard any consumer or regular person come out in favor of the parked page or the PPC page. It's just, frankly, ludicrous. And I know this is Australia, and people seem to be suddenly very engaged with land metaphors. So I saw the movie. It was a really good movie. Hugh Jackman. They had a good bio on him last night. If you had a big piece of land, and I buy a big piece of land next to your land. And I send my cattle across the river to eat all of your grass. And I put signs on my piece of land saying that nobody should go on that piece of land because it's radioactive, how can we argue that's not abuse? I think in the consumer mind or the consumer environment, that's what we're looking at. We're not trying to make simple comparisons. And, you know, I just -- I just -- when we try to claim what we think consumers do or feel or advocate for them on behalf of ludicrous issues, I think we're getting way off scope. And that concerns me given all that we have to do for work. >>PHIL CORWIN: Speaking of getting out of scope, can you point out to me anywhere in ICANN's charter or the intent of ICANN where it was ever intended that it have the authority or power to dictate business models on the Internet. That's a job -- if it is a proper job for national legislatures, not for ICANN to dictate what's a proper business model on the Internet as long as it's not infringing or engaging in illegal activity. Now -- >>BEAU BRENDLER: Can we go back to the charter of this working group? Was that not a part of -- did we not spend 20 minutes -- >>PHIL CORWIN: I don't care what the charter is. Whatever parent this working group has is derived from the apparent parent of ICANN. And ICANN has zero power to decide what's a legitimate business model on the Internet. And I don't think anybody who thinks about it for more than a second should want ICANN to be in that business. >>GREG AARON: I'm going to go to George. He's had his hand raised. >>GEORGE KIRIKOS: I think Evan's maybe problem is with the allocation of domain names to begin with, the first come first served system isn't necessarily working for him. If he feels that, you know, he has a better use for a domain name, he wants that domain name just by asking for it. Somebody a few speakers ago had asked is there a better way to determine who has the best use of a domain name? And, actually, we do have a system. It's called the market model. Whoever pays the most for a domain name can get it. If I have domain contests.com and I'm Yahoo and somebody offers me more than it's worth, I'm -- more than it's worth to me, makes perfect rational sense for me to sell it to them. And they did. They auctioned my name for $380,000 last week. I think it goes to the point that most people are considering domains to be private property. As long as they're not infringing upon somebody else's rights, they can basically do whatever they want with it as long as they pay the renewal fee. And, if we start tampering with that, it would be a very slippery slope. Without saying there's some additional public purpose to it that we have to meet certain standards, who defines what those standards are? I don't want Evan to be defining it. I think, you know, private individuals should be able to define for themselves what they want to do with their domain, with their property. >>GREG AARON: Thank you, George. Mike Rodenbaugh? >>MIKE RODENBAUGH: So just a couple points, I think. First of all, TLDs can and do and will impose content restrictions on how domains are used within those TLDs. It happens in the sponsored TLDs today. It certainly will happen in a lot of new TLDs that come down the pike. And that will be perfectly -- has been perfectly acceptable and will be perfectly acceptable under ICANN policies. But trying to go back and say now that in dot com or dot net or dot org, we ought to consider this a form of abuse is simply unrealistic. And I think, if we do need to go back to council as a scoping issue, we're not going to get a single vote that would support what you're suggesting, Evan. I just think that's the reality. We should focus our scope a little bit more on different types of abuse. I certainly respect the opinion that you're asserting. I used to share it, actually. Long time ago at this point. But it's -- it's not the form of abuse that the council was considering when we chartered this working group. We were looking more at illegal sorts of uses of names. >>GREG AARON: Okay. Paul? >>PAUL STAHURA: Three things. First thing is regarding the charter. Apparently, Beau, some of us think that it is within the charter. I don't. But, you know, apparently, some people think abuse is the same thing as nonuse. Or less use is somehow, you know, trumped by better use. So that's why talking about use is really a tricky question. I think nonuse is nonabuse. And better use does not trump less better use. Regarding a mechanism -- I think James brought up auctions. You know, if I have Andrew.com, and three people want it, right, that maybe they have better uses for it, well, I could share it. I could put up Andrew.com -- and, again, we're talking about the web. And there's a lot of other uses for domain names like email whatever. But, anyway, I put up Andrew.com. I have three links on it for the other people who want to share it. Maybe they pay me. I call those ads. I got Andrew.com. And there's three other guys. And there's three links up there. Which Andrew are you talking about? Click, click, click. Which one? So another mechanism besides auctioning is sharing. And that's how I think of those pages with ads, the PPC pages you hate or you say the consumers hate. And then my third point is on consumers. You know, if you ask your consumer group, do you like ads on TV? I think most consumers would say no, give me free TV. Give me TV without ads. I hate ads. I think that's kind of the question you may be asking about these PPC pages. I -- I believe that they bring benefits to consumers because they get consumers closer to where they want to go. And I'm talking about generic words. I'm not talking about, you know, typos of Verizon. I agree, that's abuse of Verizon's trademark. But, if it's, you know, a generic word like shipping.com and there's a bunch of shippers up there with different ads, I think that they're just sharing the domain shipper.com. And they're paying the owner of shipper.com who took a risk to buy that name. And they're paying him to share it. That's my three points. >>GREG AARON: Okay. Thank you. We've hit the top of the hour, which means we've run out of time for today. The welcome ceremony is going to be beginning in a few minutes. So I'm glad we had some lively discussion today. This is one of the major issues that was on the list. And we'll continue to discuss it. We have a subteam that's going to work on this definition for our next meeting, which will be held in teleconference in two weeks. We have extended the time we're meeting for our regular meetings. We're still on a biweekly schedule. But we're going to 90 minutes, so we can squeeze in some additional work over the course of the working group. So, on behalf of the group, thank you for coming today. We had a great meeting. And I'd like to thank you again for your participation. For those of you who joined remotely, also, thank you for joining us. And have a wonderful week here in Sydney. And members of the group, we'll talk again in two weeks. Thank you.