The headlines for Toyota in recent weeks have not been good.  The recall of 11 models to repair sudden acceleration, including a ban on the sale of eight models, has put Toyota at an estimated $500 million in lost revenue per week.  The timing of this couldn’t be worse, as Toyota is faced with what could be their second straight annual loss when the final numbers are in for 2009.

The financial hit aside, Toyota is clearly in the midst of a public information challenge.

What role can .ORG have in this?  Being a very serious problem that affects Toyota drivers, potential buyers, and the community at large, it is only natural that this vital information should reside on Toyota.org or myToyota.org.  At a time of crisis, people turn to .ORG – it stands for trust, credibility and community, and instantly associates that to the information.  Toyota is getting out-maneuvered at this.  In doing research this morning, we found an independent, unaffiliated site named www.toyotarecall.org – a website that has a load of good information, including  videos, recent news articles, FAQs, etc. It’s basically an example of what Toyota should be doing to communicate with customers.  This .ORG website is viewed by over 8,000 thousand visitors a day.  Toyota, take note.

The numbers say it all: In 2009, there were 148,000 zombie computers (spammers, botnets, etc.) created per day, over 2.6 million known malicious code threats at the start of 2009, and by the end of the year, nearly 1 million new ones were created.  In other words, to quote the illustrious Stewart Baker: “[The security threat] is worse than we even thought.”

As we head into 2010, it’s no secret that the issues of security and the prevention of internet identity theft in all its forms are of critical importance. That’s why .ORG, the Public Interest Registry, was honored to host the First .ORG Forum yesterday here in Washington, D.C.

.ORG CEO Alexa Raad, Rod Beckstrom (CEO and President of ICANN), Stewart Baker (Partner at the law firm of Steptoe & Johnson), Michael Nelson (visiting Professor of Internet Studies at Georgetown University), Douglas Maughan (Program Manager at the Department of Homeland Security) debated the future of ICANN, grappling a series of burning questions like: What roles should ICANN, government and private industry play to ensure that new TLD remain safe and secure?  How should they interact or collaborate to solve some of the major security threats prior to releasing new TLD? In the continuum between regulatory policies and technical oversight, where do you think ICANN should focus on as a priority to increase internet security?

Interested in hearing their thoughts and comments first-hand? Good news! You can watch the roundtable discussion by clicking here. The recorded session is broken into four parts, click on the play button to see the introduction (Part 1) below. Comments, thoughts and, of course, ideas for future Forums are welcome.

We thank all of you who were able to join us in-person and online for yesterday’s inaugural event. Most importantly, our deepest appreciation goes out to Rod, Stewart, Michael and Douglas for lending their unparalleled insight and helping make our first annual Forum an overwhelming success.

Stay tuned for details on our next Forum!

The ICANN Studienkreis celebrated its 10th year with a meeting in Barcelona on January 21-22, 2010. Alexa Raad, CEO, and David Maher, Sr.VP, attended on behalf of .ORG.

The Studienkreis had its first meeting in Leipzig in 2000 as a forum primarily for Europeans interested in ICANN and its role as coordinator of the domain name system. The website describes the Studienkreis as “an open network of individuals from different Internet constituencies from the private sector, the academia, the civil society, the media and the government.” The annual meetings organize “high level expert seminars on subjects, related to Internet Governance and the development of ICANN.”

The first meetings offered the opportunity for German speakers to hold meetings separate from ICANN, but since 2004, under the sponsorship of a number of Internet registries, registrars and service providers, including PIR, the Studienkries has been conducted in English with participants from around the world.

This year’s meeting maintained the same high standard of discussion as experienced in previous years. The meeting opened with a panel discussion by experts from Spain, the host country, regarding management of the .es and .cat domains. The remarks included discussion of the success of the .cat domain and its impact on Catalan culture.

The second panel discussed developments in Internet governance, with speakers representing the Council of Europe, the US Department of Commerce (DoC), ICANN, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The panel reviewed the new Joint Project Agreement between ICANN and the DoC. The panelists largely agreed that the success of the IGF depends on its function as an international forum for discussion, as opposed to being a decision making body.

On the second day, the lead panel discussed ICANN’S proposals for new gTLDs, with a focus on the current issue of having an “Expression of Interest” (EOI) proceeding. There was rough consensus that the current model for the EOI needs further development and will probably not be put in final form before ICANN’s Nairobi meeting.

The next panel gave a number of would-be applicants for new gTLDs the opportunity to present their plans. The proposals for city and regional TLDs were clearly the best developed. Ken Stubbs of Afilias, as commentator, emphasized the importance of a well thought out business plan for the success of the applicants.

The new IDN ccTLDs were discussed in the next panel by representatives of the governments of China, Russia and Egypt. It was evident that there is very strong governmental support for these new domains in the national languages and scripts.

Security was the topic of the next to last panel, and there was agreement on the need for international cooperation.

The final panel looked forward to the year 2015, with a number of panelists discussing the “Internet of Things”. The keynote for this panel was a paper delivered by David Maher of PIR on “ICANN and its Obligations to the Global Public Interest.”

The beginning of every year is a time for introspection, an appraisal of the year that was, and planning for the year to come.  It is also a time to follow tradition and to recap the biggest news of the year.  But by now, I am guessing that we have all read our fair share about the people and events who have impacted the last 12 months.  But as we examine the “whats” of 2009 (i.e. what happened, who was involved, and what resulted) , we should set our focuses forward  by learning from yesterday and planning for tomorrow. That said, if we take a larger vantage point (than our own relatively small domain name industry), these lessons from 2009 – in my view- could teach us all and most importantly, really shape the year ahead:

1. The Internet needs to be protected not only from the potential impacts of technical considerations but also from over-eager governments.

Governments are increasingly searching for ways to control and manipulate news and expression. What’s more is that when the traditional channels fail, they try their hand at controlling Internet access.  This control can take the form of shutting down sites or manipulating the Internet bandwidth available to users within the country at crucial times.  What results is that the beauty of  the Internet’s vast “oneness” and ubiquitous accessibility ultimately transforms into inaccessible silos.

Yes, the Internet is growing. Yet it remains vulnerable to censorship.  While traditional news channels with defined content hierarchies are easy targets for governments, what’s proving harder to control is the self-authored content, which is de-centralized and proposes a “whack-a-mole” model to the governments.  Case in point, consider the barring of foreign news coverage from traditional sources during and after the Iranian election.  This control inspired the populace to use their mobile phones to capture images, to use Twitter and Facebook to report what was happening to the outside world, and to help organize themselves inside the country.  The most iconic image of last year was the death of a young women, Neda, from a sniper’s bullet, all captured by video on a mobile phone.  For effective communication, users’ content needs to be found by the right audience – whether that is through SEO or social networks.  As a result, many are opting for an account with these aggregators instead of their own unique domain name.  Unfortunately, these outlets of communication are becoming more centralized.  Many are consolidating (being bought – such as YouTube’s acquisition by Google) or struggling to find a working revenue model to exist (i.e., Twitter).  As outlets disappear or become more centralized, governments will have an easier time quelling the chorus of voices.  

2. We should start thinking of stability beyond particular technical considerations and have it encompass cross-border collaboration.

For example, a big threat to Internet stability and security is the rapid evolution of identity theft schemes and malware.  These scams not only affect us all technically, but they also affect the end-users’ level of trust while surfing the web.

Think of Confiker, which had us all scrambling to respond.  The Internet is a global medium. However,the laws that govern us are very much local and often conflicting.  So in trying to mitigate security threats, our hands are often tied when faced with the threat of litigation for overstepping the myriad of overlapping boundaries that we have to navigate.   As a result, many simply give up – to the detriment of us all.  Collaboratively taking responsibility and involving players outside the ICANN area is one answer (note: shameless plug for RISG  which involves almost every actor in the chain collaborating across industry lines to mitigate identity theft).  But another is our governments and regulatory systems untying the chains that bind us… or at least make it much harder to do the right thing.  Why not encourage our respective governments and regulatory bodies to provide multilateral relief in security cases which cross national boundaries? For example, ICANN provided regulatory relief upon request during Confiker so the registries could take the necessary actions to mitigate the threat. We need this model on a multilateral- governmental scale.  If we do not actively enable end-user trust in the use of the Internet, we risk losing it.

When the trust in the wider ecosystem of the Internet decreases, users will be more tempted to give  some of the their rights to a controlling third party platform provider in return for assurances of security.  Haven’t we seen that happen already many times in the real world?  I can almost hear the voice-over: remember those National Geographic specials?  Recall when the thirsty wildebeest started walking towards the safe-looking pool of water, teeming with crocodiles.  “Sadly now, there can be but one outcome.” And it wasn’t pretty.

3. We need to practice humility, see reality, and speak plainly.

We have had our heads in the sand too long, believing the Internet begins and ends with us. Reality is… it doesn’t.  The center of power is shifting from the DNS players to social media sites and the ad engines (yes, I am purposely not calling them search engines).  It is these folks who determine the privacy and control provisions for a massive number of users.  According to Facebook, ‘privacy is so yesterday.’   Last February when Facebook decided that it perhaps owned the content users posted, it was big news on CNN.  When was the last time that a WHOIS proposal enjoyed a slot on the CNN nightly news?

So what should we do?

First, we need to embrace plain speak.  Many of our advocacy efforts (funny enough on behalf of the bewildered Internet users) are shrouded in such legal/policy and technical languages that they are rendered incomprehensible.  How can the average Internet user, nay—the one who hasn’t come on yet—possibly understand what we are proposing to enable his/her access and use?

We should also support multi-stakeholder governance models like ICANN and help them to operate better.  That means meaningful and constructive (i.e. not destructive) feedback when necessary.   We should also recognize that we ourselves are not silos.  The decisions that each and every one of us makes independently, affects our ecosystem and therefore all of us in the end.  Case in point: we all turned a blind eye toward speculation and domain tasting for awhile.  And while that had its profitable moments for a few players, it ultimately introduced volatility in the domain name market as rules, ad models, and the economy changed.

Lastly, we should ask if our community’s resources and energy spent are aligned with reality.  The world is still in an economic recession. Many businesses and consumers’ first priorities are managing costs to survive.  In many countries, literacy is still an issue, followed by lack and/or cost/speed of Internet access.  In those cases where literacy and access are not the main issues, it is the government’s insistence on controlling the user activities and free expression which threatens to fragment the Internet into silos.  Identity theft and other online security problems plague governments and the average end-user,  costing each and every one of us more money. Yet the problem persists and is getting worse.

With the introduction of new TLDs, some may turn out to have a great application and use but certainly not all of them.  Is it more important that we expand the IP space (IPv6) or add more TLDs?  To me that question is akin to building high-rises on a small patch of land.  It is okay if everyone wants to live in Manhattan.

Would we all have been better off if instead we had focused our dialog first on “What the current and new generations of Internet users need from us?”   Our shared customer needs can point us all to the appropriate sequence of actions and priorities –which we might all agree to.  We can still resolve to do that in 2010.

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry extends our deepest condolences to the millions of families, friends and neighbors affected by the horrific tragedy in Haiti. As we learn the extent of the earthquake’s devastation and continue with emergency assistance, the need for our continued support and humanitarian efforts is critical. If you would like to make a donation or learn more about how you can help with the relief efforts, we recommend visiting the .ORG community, including sites such as www.redcross.org, www.globalgiving.org and www.directrelief.org.

For those of you looking to donate to or find information on a particular charity or organization, we urge you to visit our .ORG community website directory and enter “Haiti earthquake” into the search box. Thousands of trusted .org sites are available and ready with information on the earthquake, its relief efforts and how you can help.

Our comment box below is also at your disposal should you have a comment or question about how .ORG can best assist you in the wake of this catastrophe.

Some of ICANN’s current proceedings on the introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs) provide a case study on how not to develop public policy. In particular, the Rights Protection Mechanism proceedings, with serious implications for trademark owners, have followed a course that does not correspond to the ideal of ICANN’s bottom-up, consensus-based processes for policy development. More importantly, these proceedings are effectively unilateral developments in international law without the benefit of treaties or international conventions

Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 (DAGv3) is the latest in the series of guidebooks for the new gTLD application process. It contains a place holder for Rights Protection Mechanisms; these have been the subject of an intensive series of proceedings that have produced a number of proposals.  At this stage, it appears that trademark owners will not get the kinds of protection they desire, and they will have increasing conflicts with the domain name system (DNS). Their attempts to secure what they regard as basic protections of their rights have not been successful.

In the DNS, the trademark owners of the world find themselves operating in a global legal framework that is mostly separate from the trademark law of the nations of the world. At a time when the Internet is increasingly a market for goods and services, ICANN’s ad hoc approach to managing the DNS, the addressing system for this market, includes a legal structure that has largely superseded the customary remedies for trademark infringement. Instead of going to court to attack cybersquatters, trademark owners have been compelled to turn to ICANN for their remedies.

The engineers who created the Internet hoped to avoid conflicts with trademark owners by declaring that the DNS had no connection with trademark rights. As early as 1994, this position became untenable, and the coordinators of the Internet’s technical protocols were forced to embark on the slippery slope of dealing with conflicts between trademarks and DNS registrations.

Trademark owners achieved limited success in dealing with their conflicts with cybersquatters when the UDRP was introduced in 1998. The UDRP was the product of a process outside ICANN, although the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the White Paper, made it clear that a procedure for the protection of trademark rights was an essential element of its plans for the new system of technical administration of the DNS. ICANN’s charter does not authorize it either to create law or administer it, but the enforcement of the UDRP has made ICANN, in effect, the “International High Court of Trademark Justice” without the benefit of any treaty or other conventional means of developing international law. The UDRP’s bad faith standard for testing rights to a registration is applied globally and across national boundaries even though, in some cases, there may be conflicting national rights.

The UDRP is credited by most trademark owners as an effective remedy against cybersquatters because it is preferable to the time, complexity and expense involved in conventional legal actions in national courts. The UDRP is not without critics. Trademark owners complain that it is still too expensive and too slow, and many Internet stakeholders complain that the decisions are sometimes arbitrary and that the system lacks safeguards that are generally available in conventional legal proceedings (e.g., an appeals process). Furthermore, the UDRP does nothing to alleviate one of the principal problems that trademark owners see in the proposals for new domains – the expectation that the need for “defensive registrations” will be an unwelcome accompaniment to every new top level domain.

From the standpoint of the trademark owner, the preferable way to avoid proliferation of domain names (top level or second level) that infringe trademark rights would be a system of vetting new applications for registration against a data base of trademarks. The trademark owner could then take steps to prevent the registration of an infringing name. Unfortunately for trademark owners, this kind of system is antithetical to the way the Internet has worked ever since the inception of the DNS more than twenty-five years ago, and there is no likelihood that the procedures for registering new domain names will change to accommodate the wishes of trademark owners.

The engineering approach to registration of domain names has always been immediate real time registration of any available non-duplicate name on a first come-first serve basis. There have been some limited exceptions, such as sponsored domains that restrict registrations and sunrise periods for the few new domains introduced since ICANN was formed, but the engineering approach remains the operational system for most name registries.

The policy work for the present round of new gTLDs began in December 2005 and was completed by the GNSO in September 2007. The ICANN Board approved the GNSO’s recommendations at its Paris meeting in June 2008. A few months thereafter, the first version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAGv1) appeared, with provisions for “Legal Rights Objections” in Section 3.5.2 of Module 3. This section referred to GNSO Recommendation 3 -“Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally recognized principles of law”. It proposed a panel to “determine whether the potential use of the applied-for TLD by the applicant takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s trademark or service mark (“mark”), or unjustifiably impairs the distinctive character or the reputation of the objector’s mark, or otherwise creates an impermissible likelihood of confusion between the applied for TLD and the objector’s mark, by considering [certain specified factors]”

The DAGv1 policy as proposed would give trademark owners a remedy against proposals for infringing top level domains, but would do nothing about the more widespread and continuing problem of infringing second level registrations. Attachment 7 to Module 5 of DAGv1 addressed this by proposing “Rights Protection Mechanisms” in a general way. Each new domain operator would be “responsible for developing and implementing processes or mechanisms for the purpose of protecting legal rights of third parties by discouraging or preventing registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights (“RPMs”)”. This kind of general language does nothing to alleviate the defensive registration problem. Trademark owners saw themselves again faced with the necessity to acquire defensive registrations in each new domain, generally at substantial expense, simply to prevent cybersquatters from grabbing their marks.

Draft Applicant Guidebook version 2 (DAGv2) appeared in February, 2009 and repeated the wording of the Legal Rights Objections section of DAGv1. Attachment 7 of DAGv1 became Specification 7 with no change other than an introductory line: “[Note: the scope of these requirements is the subject of continuing community discussion]”

The continuing community discussion erupted into a major change in the DAG’s treatment of trademark issues. The ICANN Board, at its meeting in Mexico City in March, 2009 passed a resolution calling for the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN to convene an “implementation recommendation team” (IRT) to “develop and propose solutions to the overarching issues of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs.” The IRT was promptly formed, consisting of a blue ribbon panel of prominent trademark lawyers, including one from the gTLD registries, and one from the registrars. It produced its final Report at the end of May 2009. The Report immediately generated controversy, based not only on its conclusions and recommendations, but also on the procedural questions raised by ICANN’s delegation of the trademark protection issue to the Intellectual Property Constituency.  Debates on the IRT Report were held in New York and London in July, with further consultations in Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi.

The IRT Report made the following five principal recommendations:

1. IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms (“RPMs”), and standardized pre-launch rights protection mechanisms;
2. Uniform Rapid Suspension System (“URS”);
3. Post-delegation dispute resolution mechanisms;
4. Whois requirements for new TLDs; and
5. Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation.

Of these, the proposal for a Globally Protected Marks List (GPML) was the only one specifically intended to meet trademark owners’ concerns about the need for defensive registrations. The GPML would be a list of trademarks registered by the trademark authorities in a set number of nations in each of five areas of the world. The GPML was not intended to be a list of “famous” marks, but rather a list of marks that met a specific standard based solely on the number of official national (or multinational) trademark registrations. In general, marks that met the GPML criteria would be blocked from use as top level domains by entities other than the trademark owners, and would also be blocked from use as second level registrations (subject to certain exceptions). This would be a reasonably effective start to dealing with the defensive registration problem.

The IRT recommendations, including the GPML, received support from two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, who wrote to the President of ICANN, Rod Beckstrom, on September 15, 2009, and asked:

“Which of the recommendations of the IRT does ICANN plan to implement? …If implemented, how will the recommendations put forth by the IRT serve to reduce or eliminate the need for defensive registrations?”

Beckstrom’s reply to this letter asserted that the URS would reduce the incentive for cybersquatters to engage in bad faith registrations and would reduce the perceived power of new gTLDs to charge artificially inflated prices.

When the IRT was convened, ICANN made no promises that its recommendations would be adopted without exception. When DAGv3 appeared in October, 2009, it contained a place holder for Rights Protection Mechanisms, and was accompanied by a chart showing the differences between the IRT recommendations and what appear to be proposals by ICANN staff for the RPMs. The GPML has been dismissed with the following “Comments/Rationale”:

“It is difficult to develop uniformly acceptable standards can be developed [sic] – it might lead to the creation of new rights. It would create only marginal benefits because it would only apply to a relatively small number of names.”

Whatever the merits of the GPML, it deserves more consideration than this summary dismissal. Making matters worse, the ICANN Board wrote a letter to the GNSO Council on 12 October asking it to present its views on whether the staff recommendations are “consistent with the GNSO’s proposed policy on the introduction of new gTLDs and are the appropriate and effective option for achieving the GNSO’s stated principles and objectives.” This hardly seems consistent with a bottom-up model of policy development in which the GNSO Council has responsibility not for making policy but rather for coordinating its development. Asking the GNSO Council to comment on ICANN staff’s recommendations is an end run around what should be a serious debate among the Internet’s stakeholders on the GPML.

At another level, the treatment of the GPML is another example of the dangers posed by ICANN’s role as the International High Court of Trademark Justice, alluded to above. As ICANN implements those recommendations of the IRT that are supported by its staff, ICANN will move closer to becoming an international quasi-governmental authority. This is not what we set out to do in 1998.

Ideally, the trademark owners of the world, and lawyers, legislators and judges should redouble their efforts to create an international legal structure that takes account of the unique aspects of the Internet’s DNS and its uneasy relationship with trademark rights. If we are going to have an International High Court of Trademark Justice, it should be solidly based on law, not on ICANN’s ad hoc processes.

During the past week, PIR has actively participated in several of the most important current policy proceedings at ICANN, and has joined in the comments filed by the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG).

A brief summary of the issues, the comments, and the URLs for the full text, follows:

1. The Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR).
The issue: The ERSR is a proceeding intended to deal with serious incidents that threaten the systematic security, stability and resiliency of a TLD or the DNS itself. It was developed to provide a process for a gTLD registry to inform ICANN of a security incident and request exemption from compliance with some Registry Agreement provisions so that the registry could respond quickly to the incident.

Our position: The proposal by ICANN contains wording that would make the policy applicable even to very minor incidents that are outside the control of any registry. RySG asked that the wording be revised to clarify that only major security incidents are covered.

Comments on ERSR filed on 18 Nov 2009

2. Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 (DAG3) – Modules 1-4
The issue: These are extensive comments (15 pages) on the first four modules of DAG3.
Among the major issues are the timeline for opening the application process, the definition of “community”, and the new concept of high security domains.

Our position: RySG objects strongly to the time gap that is now developing between the introduction of new IDN ccTLDs and the availability of an application process for IDN gTLDs. This gap will give an unfair advantage to the country codes and in the long run will disadvantage the users of the Internet who expect a choice of services from IDN domains. RySG also points out that the definition of “community” needs considerable work, in its comments on the issue of separating applications for new gTLDs into community based or standard.
RySG criticizes ICANN’s proposal for new high security domains on the grounds that the proposal puts ICANN in the position of favoring one business model over others. In addition, this proposal changes the current policy of equivalent access for registrars without any basis for such a fundamental change.
The comments are also critical of several aspects of the evaluation procedures and the dispute resolution procedures.

Comments on DAG3 – Modules 1-4 21 Nov

3. Comments on the Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 (DAG3) – Modules 5-6
The issue: These are also extensive comments (51 pages), primarily on the Draft Base Agreement in Module 5. RySG critiques this agreement, paragraph by paragraph. The most salient issue is the draft provision that allows ICANN almost unlimited latitude to amend the terms of the agreement unilaterally. This provision came to the attention of ICANN’s Chairman, Peter Dengate Thrush, at the Seoul conference in October. Mr. Dengate Thrush, an experienced barrister, was shown the offending paragraph and spontaneously said, “I would not sign that”. PIR understands that the provision is now getting some further work by ICANN staff.

Our position: We would not sign it either.

Comments on DAG3 – Modules 5-6 21 Nov

4. Comments on the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
The issue: These comments focus on the PDDRP, one aspect of the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms for new gTLDs; the PDDRP is a part of DAG3 but it is a separate subject for public comment.
The original version of PDDRP was part of the recommendations of ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) that was charged with developing recommendations for protection of intellectual property rights.
The original version allowed complaints to be filed against registries that allegedly failed to crack down on cybersquatters. The complaints would then be reviewed by ICANN and in some cases referred to a panel. ICANN would, however, retain ultimate responsibility for any decision. The revised PDDRP in DAG3 changes this to a system where all complaints are referred to, and decided by, a panel independent of ICANN.

Our position: RySG believes that ICANN altered the original version in such a way as to destroy its usefulness. The new version is unfair because ICANN should take responsibility for determining whether a registry has violated the terms of its Registry Agreement. RySG takes the position that the Rights Protection Mechanisms should either include the original PDDRP or eliminate it entirely.

Comments on PDDRP 22 Nov

5. Comments on the IP Clearinghouse
The issue: These comments focus on another aspect of the proposed Rights Protection Mechanisms for new gTLDs; like the PDDRP, the IP Clearinghouse is a part of DAG3 but it is a separate subject for public comment. The Clearinghouse would notify prospective registrants in a new gTLD if a domain name chosen by the registrant were identical to a registered trademark listed in the Clearinghouse.

Our position: The RySG is generally supportive of the idea of a clearinghouse that would gather information on registered trademarks from all the registration systems of countries around the globe. RySG takes the position that such a clearinghouse should be mandatory for new gTLDs (excluding those that have another pre-launch rights protection mechanism that achieves the same results).

RySG urges ICANN to be cautious in extending the application of the clearinghouse concept. It should have no effect on existing registries, except as a voluntary resource. The current system of real-time registration of new domain names cannot be compromised by requiring a comparison of a registration request to a list of trademarks.

Comments on IP Clearinghouse 23 Nov

For a full understanding of these issues, we urge you to review the full comments of the Registries Stakeholder Group. We welcome the support of our readers on these issues.

On Dec 1st, .ORG, The Public Interest Registry experienced a significant loss.  Our loss was not one of market share or service; it was one far more significant.  We lost Christine Lee — a precious and compassionate, friend, mother, wife and co-worker — to breast cancer.  I met Christine when I first started in July of 2007.  She was the executive assistant and office manager for PIR.  Chris greeted me on my first day with a warm smile, and proceeded to take me under her wing to ensure I met everyone and that I was settled in my new office with everything I needed to get started.  I noticed on that first day that she had pictures of her family, including her beloved dogs, prominently displayed on her desk.  I remember thinking that this was a woman who had her priorities right!

It wasn’t until almost 6 months later that I heard she was a breast cancer survivor, and had chosen to come back to work after what must have been a long and painful treatment.   She never dwelt on it, but instead, on my first day, she stuck her head in my office to say that she wanted to be given more projects and more work.  To sit idly by was simply not her style.  As I got to know her better during the course of the first year, I grew to appreciate her refreshing attitude.  In a culture of where it can become easy to use victimhood and blame, she stood out as she never wore her story of cancer as a badge nor did she feel she was a victim.

One day, a few months later, I noticed that she was wearing a compression glove on one hand.  When I asked her about it, she said simply that given her treatment history, one of her hands would swell from time to time and though she wasn’t trying to emulate Michael Jackson, she had to wear it for relief.

I asked her to take on several projects, the first of which was the first .ORG event at the November 2007 ICANN meeting in Los Angeles, CA.   The event was a cruise, complete with Hollywood impersonators and a red carpet to “premier” the new .ORG brand and the new PIR.  By all accounts the event was a success, and she took such joy in a job well done.  And when we finally left our cramped and crowded offices a month later, it was Christine who organized the build-out and the office move, and managed to get everyone settled in and working from day one.

Half-way into my tenure, she came into my office early one morning, and, as her eyes welled up with tears, she told me the news we all would dread to hear: “the cancer is back.”  I was confounded and heartbroken as I attempted to reassure her that she would beat this disease again.  I told her that she need not worry about her job responsibilities and that we would all pitch in to cover.  As she went through the second set of grueling chemo and radiation treatment, she insisted on coming to work. The team here pitched in and supported her during this process.   As Christmas 2008 approached her prognosis was much better.  Although she was bearing the physical signs of radiation and chemotherapy, she continued her daily trip to the office.  At that time, in the depth of the economic crisis, we decided that in lieu of another gift basket or a box of chocolates, we would opt for something more worthwhile.  I asked Chris to place a few calls to see if we could adopt a needy family and fulfill their wishes.  This was just the type of thing that she loved to do.  Chris found an incredibly deserving single mom, with a serious illness, and her start student adolescent son.  As she read me his Christmas wish list (which included “a winter coat for mom”) her eyes welled with tears.  She secured all of the items from their list with the budget we had set.  There was just one item she really wanted and for which she did not have the budget.  The boy had asked for just one thing for himself – an Apple I-touch.  It just so happened we had purchased a few as giveaways for registrars.  She came to ask, or should I say claim, the last I-touch we had for him.  It was her idea to invite them to our office to meet us and to pick up their gifts – all lovingly gift wrapped by her.  One of my fondest memories of her is from that meeting.  She took such joy in being able to make someone else’s holiday unforgettable. The last present given was the I-touch, and as he opened it and shrieked with delight, I looked across at Chris and saw her eyes well up again.  She, more than anyone else, took such joy in the bringing of joy to others.

Towards the end of her treatment, I reassigned her to contracts and operations where she would be using some of her legal background and would have less stress and more reasonable hours than working for me.  She loved that job and I fear she loved working for Michelle Coon more than working for a moving target like me.  As she got better and her hair grew back, we all complimented her on her new look.  She had a spring in her step and I could always hear her laughing or joking with the others as she went about her work.

The news hit all of us like a thunderbolt this September.    She had been taken to the hospital with chest pains.  We found out a few days later that it was a broken rib, weakened by the now returned and growing cancer.  The news was a dark, descending cloud.  When she came back to the office a few days later, we hugged her and told her she would beat it again, being the tough New Yorker that she was.  She did not waver, and she insisted that she wanted to be in the office carrying on with her work.  I know at least twice Michelle and Larry, as well as others, begged her to go home and rest, but being as stubborn as she was, it took all of us and her husband to convince her to take a few days off. In October 2009 – while awards and recognition for our team rolled in and PIR posted record growth – we also found out that she would not be coming back as her prognosis had gone from bad to worse.  As we took pride in the challenges we had overcome, it was a struggle to accept those we could not win.

A few days before Thanksgiving, I had the opportunity to listen to a speech by the Apollo 13 Astronaut T. K. Mattingly.  His recounting of the Apollo 13 mission was a story of teamwork against all odds to bring back the crew alive.  It was an inspiring story about the impact even one individual can make, and the real meaning of teamwork.

As Thanksgiving approached, her family informed us that her time was not a matter of months but days.  Faced with the unfair and heartbreaking news, we all grappled to find meaning in a holiday meant as a day of gratitude.  I felt anger and helplessness.  What could I possibly give thanks for when I questioned the fundamental fairness of it all?  Why should she, a warm and caring wife, mother and co-worker, have to face cancer twice and lose?

Christine Lee passed away on December 1, 2009, surrounded by her loving family and friends at her home.

I feel fortunate to have known this incredible human being, who felt joy in making a difference for others, and who showed true dignity, courage and hope against insurmountable odds.  I am grateful to have witnessed the true teamwork, love and compassion displayed by the team that surrounded her.  This was not just a few co-workers sharing office space, but a compassionate set of individuals who took turns visiting her, bringing her home-cooked meals, books and even set up her laptop at home so she could continue to be in touch.   I am grateful to have witnessed it all.  And now I am grateful to have the chance to pass on her story and to encourage the fight against this disease which takes such a toll on so many around the world.

I ask you to join me in keeping her spirit alive by leaving your comments and memories about Christine Lee for her family and loved ones.  I also ask that you support Harry Lee, her husband, in raising $25,000 for the Avon Breast Cancer Walk.  Chris and her husband walked for, volunteered and raised money for this charity.  You can donate via this link.

http://walk.avonfoundation.org/site/TR?px=1647108&fr_id=1910&pg=personal

And lastly, please encourage your loved ones to get regular screening for breast cancer, with the hope that in the future we will not have to mourn another heartbreaking loss.

.ORG welcomes you to our new blog series. The .ORG community is home to a very diverse and dynamic group of individuals and industries. Through this series, The Public Interest Registry will highlight .ORG’s from different industry markets, who are making extraordinary strides with their missions, initiatives and have seen a correlation between being a .ORG and their success.

In this installment, we are excited to promote a great .ORG whose mission and focus is associated with the Green Movement and improving the environment for a better future.  We had the opportunity to speak with Rebecca Connors, Internet Outreach Manager of Friends of the Earth, to learn more about their mission and what the key to their success has been over the past 40 years.

In our discussion Rebecca explained to us that Friends of the Earth was organized to defend the environment and champion a healthier and just world. They are progressive environmental advocates, who pull no punches and are often required to be aggressive to create awareness for critical truths regarding environmental issues to individuals and decision makers who are uncomfortable with the realization of these truths.

Friends of the Earth has been active in the Green Movement and advocating on behalf of environmental issues for four decades and has recently celebrated its 40^th year of victory in protecting the planet and its people.  Their current campaigns focus on clean energy and fighting global warming, low-pollution transportation options and protecting people from harmful emerging technologies.

We asked Friends of the Earth if being a .ORG has had an effect on their success or has impacted their cause in a positive way. Rebecca mentioned that Friends of the Earth first created their web presence only about a decade ago and felt that the recognition and association that an organization receives from having a .ORG address was crucial to the overall awareness and branding for their organization. She explained that being identified as a .ORG denotes a level of trust that was critical to convey.  Rebecca said that people immediately perceived Friends of the Earth as a non-profit entity and that has a significant impact on their brand, which allows them to gain public acceptance and grounds on environmental issues.

The .ORG community is highly populated with Green/Environmental Preservation organizations who call .ORG home. In our discussion with Rebecca, she explained that being a part of the Green Movement as a member of the .ORG Community helps them to easily identify their allies. She said, it helps to be among other great proactive, green and environmental preservation organizations, and that on its own provides Friends of the Earth with an informal coalition of groups that can work together to forward their mission and causes. “As there is strength in numbers,” Rebecca told us, “it is so important for Friends of the Earth to identify themselves as .ORG and be a part of the .ORG Green Movement community.”

We’d love to hear what market your organization represent and how being a .ORG is impacting your cause to help further pursue your mission.

This week, I had the opportunity to attend PR News’s Nonprofit PR Awards as a winner in the Marketing category for .ORG’s DNSSEC Rollout for promotion, education and awareness around DNS Security Extensions.  We beat out some very good campaigns/organizations for this award, including BackBay Communications, Bloomington Hospital, First 5 LA/Hershey Causes, Foundation for Chiropractic, and Goodwill Industries!   We were excited to be nominated and chosen for this award as it is a challenge to effectively and comprehensively communicate this important upgrade to the Internet infrastructure to both the Internet community and the general public at large.

The awards event was held at the National Press Club with a sold out crowd honoring the best of the best of Nonprofit communicators.  With a keynote speech from the largest charity in the world, United Way’s VP of Public Relations, Del Galloway, the afternoon was exciting.  Lance Wolak, Director of Marketing and Product Management, accepted the award, and included a thank you to Lauren Price, Sr. Product Marketing Manager, for assembling and leading the DNSSEC Industry Coalition and me for the implementing .ORG’s social media platform.

While we still have a long way to go to increase awareness and adoption, PIR has managed to gain a foothold in its efforts and it’s nice to be recognized for our achievement.