news ICA Sounds The Alarm: Tell ICANN No to URS at .Travel – Or It Will Travel to .Com

[tomcarl]

"URS" is comparable to a "UDRP" but it's a lot cheaper, only $500 and allows any "trademark holder" (or reverse domain hijacker/competitor) to get a new gTLD domain suspended.

URS are currently only for the new gTLDs but now ICANN is proposing the process to the .Travel extension which is not a gTLD, if this goes through, .Com will be next.

More info...

http://www.thedomains.com/2015/05/2...no-to-urs-at-travel-or-it-will-travel-to-com/

*******************
What can you do? Take a second to send an email to ICANN (Also, Share on your Blogs, Retweet, FB, etc)

Below is a Template

To [email protected]

Dear ICANN:

I am writing in regard to the Proposed Renewal of .TRAVEL Sponsored TLD Registry Agreement issued for public comment on May 12, 2015.

I am strongly opposed to the inclusion of a modified version of the new gTLD rights protection mechanisms in Specification 7 of the proposed RA, especially Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS).

All the new gTLD RPMs were implementation details of the new gTLD program and are not ICANN consensus policies applicable to all registries and registrars. The URS can become a consensus policy only after a full policy development process (PDP) engaged in by the entire ICANN community of stakeholders. The ICANN community has not even received the new gTLD RPM Issues Report that staff will be providing to the GNSO in September 2015.

Imposing URS on an incumbent gTLD via the contracting process is an absolutely unacceptable staff intervention into the policymaking process. Approval of this draft contract would constitute top-down, staff-driven policymaking in direct violation of ICANN’s stated commitment to the bottom-up, private sector led policy development process.

Therefore, the .Travel renewal RA should be referred for Board consideration only after Specification 7/URS has been removed from the agreement, along with all other provisions derived from the new gTLD RA that are not established consensus policies applicable to incumbent gTLDs.

Thank you for your consideration of my views.

Sincerely,

[Name, title, organization]

 

[HeyNow]

What can you do? Take a second to send ...

A valiant effort indeed, tomcarl, but you act as if the domaining community is held in high esteem by ICANN and others. Here's where the chickens come home to roost, so to speak. Do you really think ICANN is going to consider policies from the community that heralds and holds in high esteem those individuals and entities that commit domain auction fraud? Do you really think ICANN is going to lurk in this forum to garner serious criticism and critique of any ICANN policy? Do you really think ICANN is going to read your post about their proposed new policy then not laugh out loud after reading the other threads and posts in this forum, other domainer forums, and domain "news" ragsites that deem the scoundrels in our industry "reputable?" You really think ICANN is going to give credence to any letter proffered from the gang that pays money to go watch domain auction cheats give speeches at domainer conventions? Do you really think ICANN is going to seriously consider the viewpoint of the community from which praises about the success of typosquatters and spammers emanate?

"Take a second ..." Indeed!

 

[DNabc]

Here is more information:
http://www.internetcommerce.org/urs-without-pdp-just-sucks/

Who will we sue for wasted time and lawyer costs?

 

[DNabc]

EFF, hurrah!
http://www.internetcommerce.org/eff-no-urs-at-dot-travel/