[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Feb 16 21:32:32 EET 2017
Seems important that we engage on this, can folks who are at the
intercessional weigh in and brief us on what we might want to do?
cheers SP
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH
Intersessional Participants
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:44 +0000
From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com>
To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
Dear NCPH Intersessional Participants:
It was great working with all of you during our NCPH Intersessional
meeting! Following up on our discussion during themeeting, I write to
provide some additional background information on the .FEEDBACK Public
Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) currently
pending at ICANN. I know a number of you were interested in learning
more about the issue, so hopefully this summary provides some helpful
additional detail.
As you may know, ICANN created the PICDRP to permit any person who has
been harmed to ask ICANN to take action when a new gTLD registry
operator violates its Public Interest Commitments (“PICs”). PICs are
special provisions in the registry’s contract with ICANN. PICs are
intended to ensure that the registry operates its gTLD in the public
interest, free from fraudulent or deceptive activity, and in accordance
with principles of transparency and non-discrimination.
Unfortunately, from the moment Top Level Spectrum, Inc. (TLS) launched
.FEEDBACK, it (and parties acting in concert with it), unleashed an
escalating series of deceptive marketing practices that violate its
PICs, and the promises it made to ICANN when it first applied for the
exclusive right to run .FEEDBACK. TLS’s deceptive conduct violates its
own policies, terms and conditions that it imposes on others, and
violates certain applicable laws, including consumer protection laws.
More specifically, as detailed in the complaint, TLS:
* Promised they would run .FEEDBACK as a place for genuine commentary,
whether positive or negative when TLS hired paid reviewers to write
and post fabricated reviews on .FEEDBACK and cut and pasted users’
comments posted years earlier from Yelp. TLS never disclosed that
such reviews are not from actual customers, its role in soliciting
and hiring paid reviewers, and the fact that the vast majority of
such reviews (62%) come from users located in the Seattle,
Washington area, near TLS’s headquarters.
* Launched a marketing program called FREE.FEEDBACK, deceptively
targeted brand owners to validate and renew .FEEDBACK domain names
they never sought to register in the first place. The FREE.FEEDBACK
program resulted in brand owners being targeted by phishing schemes.
* Repeatedly changed its own policies and marketing programs in a
confusing, unclear, nontransparent manner, and with the intent to
discriminate against brand owners, (including self-allocating
domain names bypassing the Sunrise Period protections, and charging
exorbitant and discriminatory pricing for brand owners while
offering the identical domain names to others for “dirt cheap”).
I emphasize that the complaint is _not_ an attempt to challenge the
ostensible purpose of TLDs like .FEEDBACK to promote free expression or
facilitate genuine public commentary or discourse, whether it be
positive or negative about a company. The complaint is intended solely
to address TLS’s deceptive practices. TLS’s own practices, including
populating the majority of live .FEEDBACK websites with phony commentary
and making unauthorized comments copied from third party websites like
Yelp (including years-old reviews that are post-dated on the .FEEDBACK
site to give the appearance that it is a recent comment) undermine any
legitimate purpose behind this TLD.
Unfortunately, we recently identified a number of additional ongoing
incidents of fraudulent and deceptive conduct being perpetrated in the
.FEEDBACK TLD. For example, we found that some .FEEDBACK websites
contain what appear to be official customer service phone numbers on the
FACEBOOK.FEEDBACK, WHATSAPP.FEEDBACK, and INSTAGRAM.FEEDBACK websites,
but which actually appear to be used in connection with various
well-known consumer scams. /See /National Public Radio, Searching for
‘Facebook Customer Service’ Can Lead to A Scam
<http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/01/31/511824829/-facebook-customer-service-is-a-scam-literally> (Jan.
31, 2017). In addition, we also discovered that many .FEEDBACK websites
contain false or inaccurate contact information about the companies that
are the subject of .FEEDBACK websites. For example, a .FEEDBACK page
for a particular company is supposed to include the authoritative phone
number and address where consumers can reach that company. Instead, we
have found that .FEEDBACK pages often contain incorrect or non-working
phone numbers.
These kinds fraudulent activities harm businesses, and consumers who
seek real and trustworthy feedback about companies or are looking for
customer support. These deceptive practices are exactly the kind of
registry misconduct the PICs were designed to prevent.
Our hope is that ICANN and a PICDRP Standing Panel will fully
investigate TLS and the parties acting in concert with it, render a
formal determination as to TLS’s PIC violations, and impose appropriate
sanctions and remedial measures against TLS.
ICANN must not only take action to address this registry’s misconduct,
but also send a message that it will not tolerate these practices in any
other TLDs.
The full complaint that has been submitted to ICANN is publicly
available here <https://www.markmonitor.com/downloads/PICDRPexhibits/>.
We are currently seeking some additional procedural details from ICANN
regarding the status of the matter and next steps.
I hope this summary provides a helpful overview of the .FEEDBACK PICDRP.
I would be happy to discuss the matter further during our remaining
time together at the Intersessional, by email, or at the ICANN 58
meeting next month in Copenhagen.
Best regards,
Brian
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
bwinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com <mailto:bwinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com>
1999 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101
202.263.3284 direct dial
202.830.0330 fax
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020-1001
212.506.2345 direct dial
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you
are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or
copy this e-mail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170216/8f245f31/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list