EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology

Note to the ICANN Board Concerning Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01

Concerning Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01
Resolved (2014.03.22.NG01), the NGPC accepts the GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-09-09-wine and vin, and directs the President and CEO, or his designee, that the applications for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation process.

Rationale for Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01

The action being approved today is to accept the GAC's advice to the ICANN Board that there was no GAC consensus advice on additional safeguards for .WINE and .VIN, and the GAC "has finalised its consideration of the strings .wine and .vin and further advises that the application should proceed through the normal evaluation process." The effect of the NGPC's action concerning the GAC advice on .WINE and .VIN is that the strings will continue to proceed through the normal evaluation process and no additional safeguards will be required for the TLDs.


Dear Members of Board,

A considerable number of GAC Members have serious concerns with the Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01 as well as its Rationale and the process that has been followed to arrive at this resolution.

Despite having a GAC liaison member on the NGPC, the GAC was not aware until 26 March of this decision or its mistaken rationale. Had it been the case, the GAC could have corrected any isunderstandings and thus pre-empted the NGPC's resolution.

The action that was approved by the NGPC on 22 March and communicated on 25 March is allegedly based on GAC consensus, whereas in reality a significant number of GAC members were in consensus not to allow the .WINE and .VIN applications to proceed through evaluation until sufficient additional safeguards were in place.

There have been a series of process violations and procedural errors in arriving at this resolution. The Rationale specifically mis-states the GAC ́s view, mixing a lack of GAC consensus on what safeguards should be in place with a quote from a letter which was sent to the ICANN Board without it being circulated to the GAC members prior to it being sent.

Moreover a follow up letter from the European Commission which provides clarification on the above matter was not taken into account by the NGPC in its Rationale. As such, the European Union and its Member States, Norway and Switzerland request, in the interest of the bottom-up multistakeholder model and due respect to decision-making rules and ICANN By-laws, that the NGPC reconsiders its decision and takes into account the true opinion of the majority of the GAC members.

In order to assist the NGPC in its deliberations, we refer specifically to the following six elements:

1) The letter from the GAC Chair to the Chair of the ICANN Board dated 9 September 2013 was sent without prior consultation of GAC members. As such, it represents a breach of GAC operating principle number 47. For it to have been given the weight that it deserves, and having been quoted word by word as the view of the entire GAC, the “opinion” conveyed by the GAC Chair is thus not only incorrect but misleading. The European Commission in its letter dated 3 February 2014 specifically covered this point and said "the EU, its Member States, Switzerland and Norway still believe that these general safeguards are not sufficient and that the Beijing Consensus was overruled inappropriately when the GAC Chair advised the Board to proceed with the delegation of the WINE gTLDs instead of presenting the different views on the matter and the fact that no consensus was reached."

2) As a non voting liaison on the NGPC, the GAC Chair has a duty to share with the GAC information concerning Resolutions affecting the public policy interest. Specifically under Bylaw Article VI Section 9 on non-voting liaisons it states that "non- voting liaisons shall be entitled (under conditions established by the Board) to use any materials provided to them pursuant to this Section for the purpose of consulting with their respective committee or organisation”.

This has not been done. In the GAC meeting on 26th March, having had no information from the Chair as per the Resolution, the European Commission had to ask the Chair about her knowledge of the resolution in question. In response, the GAC chair stated that this was a question that the European Commission could ask the Board in the Public Forum.

3) As a non-voting liaison on the NGPC, the GAC Chair is supposed to convey the full range of opinions in the GAC in order to assist the committee with its deliberations. In that role, it is incumbent on her to provide the reality of the situation within the GAC. The rationale of this resolution demonstrates clearly that this has not been the case.

As per operating principle 47, in United Nations practice the concept of “consensus” is understood to mean the practice of adoption of resolutions or decisions by general agreement without resort to voting in the absence of any formal objection that would stand in the way of a decision being declared adopted in that manner. Thus, in the event that consensus or general agreement is achieved, the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations meetings and conferences have been adopted without a vote. In this connection, it should be noted that the expressions “without a vote”, “by consensus” and “by general agreement” are, in the practice of the United Nations, synonymous and therefore interchangeable.

The statement that:

"The GAC has finalised its consideration of the strings .wine and .vin and further advises that the application should proceed through the normal evaluation process."

is is not a consensus view of the GAC as per the aforementioned Operating Principle, but a mere interpretation and opinion of the GAC Chair.

4) The Buenos Aires Communique specifically refers to seeking a clear understanding of the legally complex and politically sensitive background on this matter in order to consider the appropriate next steps in the process of delegating the two strings. It is debatable whether the external expert legal advice is sufficiently reasoned and pertinent and whether the politically sensitive background of this matter has been considered. In addition, the Rationale for Resolution is vague and does not make reference to the specific grounds on the basis of which the resolution is taken, nor it addresses the specific arguments laid down in the legal advice received.

5) Article XI-A section 1 of the ICANN By-Laws requires that “the GAC - in addition to the supporting organisations or other advisory committees - shall have an opportunity to comment upon any external advice received prior to any decision by the Board”. This important prerogative has not been respected.

6) Notably, the Board has apparently been informed that the negotiations between the applicants and the wine rightholder organisations were close to completion, whereas in reality this is not the case. Negotiations are currently ongoing and not satisfactorily in all cases.

Thus the European Commission, the EU Member States, Switzerland and Norway respectfully requests that the NGPC reviews its decision and does not allow the strings to proceed to evaluation until negotiations have closed and sufficient safeguards are in place.

In the meantime, the European Commission, the EU Member States, Switzerland and Norway are requesting the following paragraph be included in the Singapore GAC Communique. At the time of this letter we do not know if this will be accepted by the full GAC for inclusion or not:

The GAC notes the NGPC Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01 which purports to accept GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-09-09-wine and vin, as well as its Rationale. The Resolution accepts that applications for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation process. In the final deliberation of the Board there have been a series of process violations and procedural errors, including the breach of Bylaws Article XI-A, Section 1. Therefore, the GAC requires to have the opportunity to consider and comment on the external advice contained in the aforementioned resolution published on the 25th of March and respectfully requests that the NGPC reviews its decision.


Respectfully submitted

Linda Corugedo Steneberg on behalf of the European Commission; European Union Member States; Switzerland and Norway.

In the wake of .Berlin – Why dot city TLDs will be a success

Did you know that when .berlin launched two weeks ago, 41.000 domains were registered during the first 48 hours? Did you also know that lots of big brands like Toyota and Honda missed out on their valuable domain names? Companies are historically slow to protect their brand name. They then have to endure expensive legal costs and spend a lot of time trying to get back their domain names.

Therefore I have written this article, as I wish to highlight, why you should care about the 45 dot city TLDs like .paris, .london and .miami. These TLDs are released over the next two years, and this article will prepare you in time to get your rightful domain names.

Read this article by the European Domain Center on gTLD.club:
http://gtld.club/2014/04/03/in-the-wake-of-berlin-why-dot-city-tlds-will-be-a-success/

Statement of Commissioner Cioloş on domain names related to wine

Together with my colleague Neelie Kroes, I am following very closely on going developments on the moves by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to introduce two new internet domain names ".wine" and ".vin".

ICANN considers granting these new domain names without any specific safeguards for Geographical indications (GIs), as clearly requested by the European Commission and many governments. Under ICANN's proposal, everybody would be further allowed to apply for sub-domains such as chianti.wine, champagne.vin or porto.wine, including individuals or companies having no connection with these specific European wines.

This is simply not acceptable.

Geographical indications are a major priority in EU international trade negotiations. They represent a vital tool for protecting consumers and valorising the efforts of producers, not only in Europe, but in the whole world.

Under international rules (WTO) and several bilateral agreements with third countries, geographical indications and names of wines are protected as intellectual property rights.

This rule must be respected for the internet. In case of no agreement within ICANN to provide sufficiently robust safeguards for the introduction of new sub-domains, it would be preferable to avoid the creation of these domains altogether. I cannot imagine that a double standard would be applied.

Therefore, I will remain vigilant to make sure that we find a swift and suitable solution, meaning a solution that ensures consumers protection and the necessary legal and judicial protection of actors in the world economy. This is crucial not only to guarantee the credibility of the structures in charge of internet governance but also the long term credibility of internet itself.

http://ec.europa.eu/press_room

New extension of the domain names: turmoil concerning .AMAZON !

Having been appointed by ICANN to represent the interest of the online community as regard to the delegation of new extensions, the IO could take charge of questions concerning public interest and the community’s objections when none objected to the application.

The famous online marketplace highlighted that there is a conflict of interest arising from the close ties between the IO and the government representing the Amazonian communities (Brazil and Peru) whereas he can act only on behalf of Internet users. Thus, his objection would only aim at formalising the objection of the governments. Alain Pellet denied the charges by affirming that the link simply results from a “normal average social life”.

Read the article on gTLD.club:
http://gtld.club/2014/04/02/new-extension-of-the-domain-names-turmoil-concerning-amazon/

Lancer sa .BOUTIQUE, c’est maintenant

Le moment semble être le bon pour se lancer dans le développement d’une boutique en ligne. En effet, bien que l'on sache que de nouveaux noms de domaine sont lancés comme par exemple ceux se terminant en “.boutique”, il est tout de même utile de noter deux choses:

1. Toutes les nouvelles extensions de noms de domaine liées à l’activité du shopping sur Internet ne sont pas encore toutes disponibles, et ne le seront pas avant quelques mois encore.
2. Concevoir une boutique sur Internet implique aussi de prendre le temps de trouver le bon prestataire, le bon système de paiement en ligne, son design et surtout de finaliser son nouveau site Internet de façon à ce que les nouveaux acheteurs puissent consulter un produit “fini”.

Lire la suite sur le Journal Du Net.

La chasse au .BUZZ est ouverte (article JDN)

Il n’est plus utile d’expliquer que les nouveaux noms de domaine sont lancés, il en existe de toutes sortes et dans de nombreuses langues dont le français. Nos marques, à ce jour, communiquent beaucoup avec les très populaires noms de domaine .COM car ceux-ci sont reconnus par les internautes. Pourtant, il est une nouvelle extension de noms de domaine qui vient d’être lancée et qui présente des particularités qui pourraient intéresser nos communicants. Voici venus les noms de domaine .BUZZ.

Des noms de domaine qui se terminent en .BUZZ
Les agences de communication et autres marques grand public n’ont qu’à bien se tenir car si elles communiquaient jusqu’alors en .COM, les nouveaux noms de domaine ICANN vont leur permettre d’innover et les sortir du lot. En effet, plus de 700 nouvelles extensions de noms de domaine sont en cours de lancement et dont le .BUZZ fait partie.

La suite sur le Journal Du Net.

700 nouvelles extensions sont lancées, enregistrez votre nom de domaine .BUZZ chez 1&1.

ICANN to close the Trademark Clearinghouse?

April 1, 2014 (Marina del Rey, California, USA) - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced today that the Board of Directors has elected Dr. Jean Guillon to succeed Fadi Chehadé as President and Chief Executive Officer.
Dr. Guillon will take office at the conclusion of the Board's next meeting in the French Palais de l'Elysée, France, April 10-14, 2014.

Fadi Chehadé, ICANN's current President and CEO, has held the position since June 2012 and has overseen the start-up of the organization.

Jean Guillon's first action will be to end the ICANN new gTLD program, close the Trademark Clearinghouse program and reimburse all applicants.

Ouverture du « .vin » et « .wine » sur internet : 6 questions pour bien comprendre les enjeux

Pourquoi l’ouverture du « .vin » et du « .wine » pose problème ?

Ces nouveaux noms de domaine peuvent être source de développement économique pour le secteur vitivinicole, dont une partie du chiffre d’affaires est réalisée via Internet, tendance qui devrait s’accroître à l’avenir. Problème : les trois sociétés candidates à l’exploitation du « .vin » et « .wine » ont indiqué qu’elles vendraient les noms de domaine de second niveau aux enchères, sans se soucier de la protection des IG. Par conséquent, n’importe quelle entreprise ou individu pourra acheter un nom de second niveau correspondant à une appellation, par exemple « beaujolais.wine », et proposer à la vente des produits qui n’ont rien à voir avec l’appellation en question, voir avec du vin. Les risques concernent au premier chef les consommateurs (tromperies sur la marchandise), mais aussi les producteurs (risques de détournement de notoriété des appellations d’origine, voire même de cybersquatting). Certains noms de domaine pourraient même être achetés à des fins spéculatives.
La suite sur gTLD.club: http://gtld.club/2014/04/01/ouverture-du-vin-et-wine-sur-internet-6-questions-pour-bien-comprendre-les-enjeux/.

Pré-enregistrez votre nom de domaine .VIN