NEWS ICANN calls for public input in US government split


ICANN is seeking feedback on its plans to form a group tasked with overseeing its split from the US government.


Te organisation has proposed creating a steering group, which would consist of 22 members and an ICANN board member liaison.


In March the US government announced its intention to leave the contract with ICANN that allows it to manage the domain name system (DNS).


ICANN has operated in partnership with the US Department of Commerce since 2000.


Known as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the contract has been renewed several times since its inception. It expires in September 2015.


In a document released on April 9, ICANN said it hopes to have implemented the new steering group by the ICANN 50 meeting in London in June.


It is seeking comments on whether the group should be created, who should be on it, and what it would do.


ICANN’s proposals were based on views gathered at the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore in March.


Te US has said ICANN’s eventual transition Nominet rejects complaint over site for sore eyes


A company providing laser eye surgery has failed to convince Nominet that a .uk domain name was covertly funded to discredit its business.


Optical Express, which is also optician, complained about a site


an called


opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk (OERML) in October last year.


In January a dispute resolution service (DRS) panel rejected the case because it was seen as a re-submission of an earlier filing, a practice banned by Nominet.


Optical Express had lost that first case because the address was deemed to be a genuine protest site.


Te respondent, Sasha Rodoy, uses the site to campaign for better regulation of the laser eye surgery industry. She originally targeted Optimax—a rival of Optical Express—aſter allegedly suffering difficulties from treatment provided by that company.


She set up optimaxruinedmylife.co.uk but the site was shut down aſter a settlement between her and Optimax.


Aſter focusing her efforts on Optical Express, Radoy used OERML to provide news on her campaign as well as material criticising Optical Express.


Despite the rejection of its complaint, Optical 8 Trademarks & Brands Online


Express argued that important new information had materialised since the first case, meaning that the dispute should be re-heard.


Tis included apparent evidence that OERML was set up and financed by Optimax to “unfairly disrupt” Optical Express’s business. Optical Express claimed that Radoy accepted “a highly questionable” and “substantial” cash payment from Optimax in relation to the site.


But Radoy denied that she has ever received any support from Optimax and argued that there is nothing abusive about her use of the site.


Te DRS panel, consisting of Tony Willoughby, Anna Carboni and Nick Gardner, had to decide whether there was any new evidence to justify a second hearing.


In their ruling on March 30, the panel said they were “unable to reach a finding that either the OERML website or the respondent are covertly funded by Optimax”.


“If the complainant wishes to pursue an allegation of that nature it should do so in a forum more suitable for determining serious and disputed allegations of integrity and dishonesty against someone who, on the face of matters, appears to be pursuing a bona fide protest campaign.


Volume 3, Issue 2


“Te panel therefore does not consider that this allegation amounts to exceptional grounds which justify a rehearing of this complaint,” they said.


Andrew Tibber, partner at Temple Bright LLP, said the dismissal serves as a further reminder to would-be complainants that “gripe sites can play a legitimate role in a democratic society and that if there is any evidence of ulterior motives, the DRS may be ill-equipped to deal with it”. 


www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com


proposal must have “broad community support” and address four main principles.


Tey are: to support and enhance the multi- stakeholder model; to maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the internet DNS; to meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and to maintain the openness of the internet.


According to ICANN, the Singapore discussions also


but separate


confirmed the need for “a process”


to parallel examine broader globalisation and accountability mechanisms.


“Building on discussions held in Singapore at the public session, this process is beginning (in parallel with the transition process) in a bottom-up manner,” ICANN said.


Any agreed transition proposal would need to be submitted to the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration for approval. 


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60