 The background context for domain name dispute resolution is that we have a system, a domain name system, which is very much in evolution. So in particular I refer to the expansion of the domain name space by the addition of new generic top level domains, you know, like what is to the right of the dot, like dot com, and what is not associated with a country like dot ch, you know. So we have this extraordinary expansion that is going on overseen by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Sign Names and Numbers. They received over 1,930, nearly 2,000 applications for around 1,400 new top level domains. And they've started the rollout of that process and they have delegated or authorised the operation of 160 new so far, so far, 160. So that is going to have an impact which is likely to be significant on trademark protection. Exact nature of the impact we are unsure of at this stage, but it is likely to be significant and disruptive. So the second thing that I wanted to perhaps point out is that one of the things that our arbitration and mediation centre of which Eric is the director does, one of the things is it has overseen the administration of something called a legal rights objection procedure and that is a procedure which has been available for any trademark owner to contest the award of a new generic top level domain. So if someone were to register dot Coca-Cola or were to apply for dot Coca-Cola or was not Coca-Cola Corporation, that's the sort of situation we're dealing with. And WIPO very successfully administered 69 cases relating to contested new generic top level domains and we can give you more details about that if you would like. The third thing I would say is that we also continue to administer the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, UDRP, which deals with trademark owners contesting the use, registration and use of a second level domain so that's what's to the left of the dot, so Microsoft dot com, so that part. And there in 2013 we administered or we received 2,585 cases. That was a decline in the number of cases from the preceding year. However, a case can concern more than one domain name and the actual number of domain names in those cases rose by 22%. So it increased significantly. I think that's all I'll say. There's a lot more detail in the press release and we're happy to talk about it. Any questions? Excuse me. It's a very subtle question. Could you elaborate on these generic names? What are the names that are coming as a rise and that are being asked to be registered by WIPO that appears to be new and that most people don't know? Sure, thank you. As the Director General mentioned, the total outlay is that applications were received by the authority for the domain name system called ICANN in a total number of something like 1900 or so. But those 1900s were actually for 1400 unique top levels, unique strings as they say. That means that among the applicants there were some that were trying to compete, that were competing for obtaining the rights to exploit the same top level. So in the end you're looking at a maximum potential expansion now of 1400 new top levels. ICANN is going through this approval process for these new top levels, which includes, for example, the legal rights objection procedure which the Director General just mentioned. And as the Director General also mentioned to the best of our knowledge, which comes essentially from ICANN, something like 160 less than 200 have been approved out of those, let's say, 1400 as of more or less early March. We have, I believe, included a reference for you to a web location which is actually on ICANN's own website. On that website you will find, first of all, all of the 1400 applied for strings, or if you like, also the 1900 distinct applicants. And secondly you will find also a more or less up to date running total of the domains as they become approved, including the 160 that we just mentioned. Can you give examples? Yes, we can. To which domains they are related. For example, COM relates more to commercial, to businesses, to countries, I don't know. Yes, well it's... Exactly. It's pretty much everything under the sun, so to say. So it's always a little bit hard to single out some from under the sun. But if you look at only, if you will only look at the list of the ones that have been approved, then the first thing to note is that those domains will not all be in the same sort of Roman script that I would recognize. But there are also top level strings, domains that will be in Arabic, that are in Chinese, Mandarin, that are in Japanese, that are in Cyrillic, and so on and so forth. And that is perhaps one comment to make first off, because it shows again the internationalization of the expansion of the top levels beyond the fact that every domain by definition spreads across the border. So that's one thing up front. And there are examples for this, for example on the list here I see a Chinese term for the word world. I see a Chinese term for the word agencies and institutions, for organization, which is in fact the Chinese equivalent for .org. There's Russian for .org. .org as you know is one of the existing domains. The list goes on in other category that I can single out is geographical terms. We have here on the approved list .Köln, which is Cologne, the city in Germany. We have .Okinawa. I believe that probably .Tokyo or Berlin are already in here as well. I have to check that it's on the list. It would be on the list. That's the second category that I think is remarkable. A third category would be in fact trademarks themselves. So for example I believe that there's the Korean equivalent for .Samsung. There is yes .Berlin is on the list by the way. .Wien, that's the German word for Vienna as you would know. There are quite a few trademarks among the 1400s. And you'll find them in this list. Let me see if I can... There is .Tienda. So that's another category. I think it's an important category because first of all I think that their total number among the 1400 is over a third. So that in itself also is going to be having some impact on the way that the domain system is being perceived and used by itself. And then the fourth category, not in that order because it's quite possibly the most important in number, are domains which are intended to be used for their generic, for their dictionary meaning. And the list is full of that. You'll see .Bit, B-I-D, .Vote. You'll see .Best, you'll see .Dating, all random examples, .Flights, .Cards, .Football, the list goes on. That's the category of domains, the latter. That comes closest to what you mentioned, which is for example .Com. Yes, Francis, can you elaborate? You said this new inflow of the top level of the domain will have a significant impact on trademarks and it will also be disrupted. Can you elaborate why? Has it got to do with what? Well, I think the principal reason is that the opportunity to use this use of trademarks expands exponentially. So there is no filtering procedure for obtaining a domain name registration. It's an automatic procedure. So you can go on and in a matter of seconds, you know, obtain a domain name registration and there is no governmental or other authority that examines that to see whether it conflicts with a trademark. And when you multiply the number of possibilities for registering domain names so that you can't register it just in .Com where it may have been taken by a trademark owner that you can register it across 1400 or 2000 or 10,000 or 50,000 different domains, you increase the opportunity for registrations by persons who are not authorized to use the trademark. I think it's as simple as that. And that brings with it the attendant inconvenience of a much greater burden of surveillance on the part of trademark owners. So instead of looking at what new registrations there are in .Com, for example, they have to look at it across 1400 or 2000 or however many there are. And so this will influence, no doubt, the way in which trademark owners approach the whole question of the protection of their trademarks in the domain name space. You know, just how many resources can they devote to surveillance or monitoring of allegedly infringing domain name registrations becomes the question for them. What sort of strategies do they adopt? Do they try to register their trademark in every single new domain, 1400 or 2000 or whatever it might be? Do they oppose every single allegedly infringing trademark registration? You know, I think these are really difficult questions of strategy for trademark owners in this evolving and expanding space. If I may have followed up to this screen that the ICANN process is badly managed because they're in charge of this and... Well, I'm not saying that. That's the expectation here. I think that what one can say is that trademark owners are very concerned about the impact that this expansion will have on branding systems. The first question was the same as John's. Perhaps to adapt it slightly. You seem to be saying there's a lot of disruption. This isn't actually a particularly positive thing. So why has this been done? What's the point of that? Well, I can't answer that. ICANN has to answer that one. They're the ones that are promoting this and who are doing it, overseeing it. So I'm not sure what the answer to that is. But can you say anything positive about that? Without saying why they didn't? Well, let's say that the DNS does not exist just for branding. Its principal purpose in life is a navigational system on the internet which will help users to navigate and find their way around the internet. So that's its principal purpose in life. So presumably their reasons for expanding relate to improving navigational capacity on the internet. What we're concerned with is the side effect of the impact that that has on identifying systems or branding systems that are used by consumers for their interaction with commerce. Jean-Pierre, one end down. Did you try to prevent this from happening? I think that you'll find that a lot of trademark owners and owners associations have expressed concern to ICANN. And what we have done is we don't consider it to be our business to take a position on the navigational system or internet governance, but our position is to try to ensure that intellectual property is respected on the internet in the same way as it's respected in the physical world. And so we have expressed our concern that appropriate procedures, simple procedures exist to enable trademark owners to protect their trademarks. I was wondering, Francis, but first of all, Eric, answer this. Will the White House Center's role in dealing with these new disputes in which GTL is being acted the same as it is currently? Or does that change in any way? Does your role change at all? I imagine you'll be sharing and exist now with other centers, there'll be other centers which can offer arbitration. And I was wondering, when do you expect this wave to break in terms of new disputes involving these new GTL teams? I mean, you've had 160 grants, and none of them are operating as far as I know. I'm not sure that's correct enough. But when will these become operational and when do you expect the first wave to use the fun flooding? Well, thank you, Dan. Of course, much of what we discuss in this and other issues is somewhat speculative, but first maybe let's go to what do we do today and what have we been traditionally doing on the main names in terms of cases and where might it go? The UDP, established on the initiative, actually, of WAPO, has been running now since December 1999. Which is when WAPO received the first case. And we've done more than 28,000 of those cases through today, covering more than 50,000 domain names, as the Director-General noted. That is an activity that will continue also for the new domains. So every single one of these new up to 1400 will also be subject to the possibility for traffic owners to keep filing a UDP case. Number one. Number two, we actually have begun now to receive the first cases under the UDP in relation to the first of these newly approved domains. I think one of them is referred to, but not by name in the press release, but I'm happy to give you the name. The first case that was received among any provider, as far as we can tell, in relation to new domains under the UDP is relating to the word canyon, the registration canyon, like the grant canyon, canyon.bike. And on the website of WIPO, you'll find it, you can search for it under that name, or you can search for it under the case number 2014-0206. So that makes it the 206th case of this year. And that case was filed by a trademark owner from Germany against an individual who I believe is based in the Netherlands. And we expect a decision in that case, a UDP decision to come out in that case, probably in the course of next week. Since then... Yes, well, it's the first case, and it will probably also be the first decision. What's the argument of the contestant? Why is he contesting it? Well, what we do not do is, we do not post complaints, and we do not post responses in the case. So what I can say is that... But we do post the judgement? Yes. We do post the judgement, and that will... Now, but what is the person contesting the registration? Yeah, I understand. So why are we not, you know, normally in a position on any case that is pending to say, okay, this is exactly what this party says, and this is what that party defends with. First of all, as the Director-General notes, once the decision is out, that will essentially, of course, summarise and discuss the facts and contentions. Number one. Number two... The process is transparent from the beginning, so what is the complaint? Well, the second point is going to say... What he's saying is that actually, before the publication of the judgement, all that you have is the case. Yeah, but that complaint is not published. Yeah, so why not? Because it's not published until... So the process is not transparent from the beginning? I wouldn't say that. I mean, the judgement puts out all the arguments. But the filing should be public from the beginning? Yeah. Okay, let me answer that in this way. First of all, of course, this is not a court. It's an alternative to the court, and it adds to it. And it leaves open the court option. Number one. Number two, it is highly transparent in that everything will come out once the decision is there. But there are policy reasons why we do not post people's allegations before that. First of all, because allegations have to be assessed independently. That's a very important point of justice, part of transparency in a sense. Number one. Number two, it is our experience, and we think that's a positive thing, that's not posting too much information about the case upfront, stimulates the chances that the parties will settle. Why will they settle? Because it's an opportunity for them to stay off the internet with whatever the conduct was on either side of the case. So there's a policy reason, too, which actually we think is a healthy one, and what you're actually seeing is that the WIPO settlement rate is more than a quarter of our cases, and that is not a coincidence. So, but having said that, Jo, I think that's the best handle of today, so to speak, on what the allegations of a party in a case like that would be, are the criteria, the substantive test of the UDP itself, which is there is a trademark right, and it is alleged to have been infringed by somebody who took the name on the internet without having rights or legitimate interests of its own. Usually, I say usually, in the way that the owner of the domain and registration will use that domain name to, for example, include links on the page to other unrelated or even competing products. That is kind of the standard scenario that we see in UDP. Yeah? Now, so the UDP, back to Dan, UDP will continue to function and the first cases have come in, Canyon I mentioned, there are two more that have come in in the meantime. One case in relation to the domain dot holdings and another one in relation to the domain dot ventures. And those cases, if you want, the numbers are again 2014 and then 0269 and 0369. Now, how many more cases will we see? That's a mental speculation entirely because, on the one hand, I think what you will see is that as the Director-General has noted, trademark owners will have to be much more focused than they already are in what they will address under their enforcement strategies. There is no shooting at everything that moves in an expanding domain and system, not even today. So that is one, let's say trend that will probably happen. On the other hand, the mere numerical expansion of the registrations as such, of course, will tempt or sometimes force trademark owners to come out and file more cases. So I think you have two countervading, two kind of competing considerations there that make it hard to say which way it will go, I think core considerations. More selectivity, but at the same time probably more need to, in any event still, target certain types of registrations. It's been a long time since I traded with the dispute, but my question is just do you have any means to enforce your decisions? Yes. A short answer. Longer answer. It's a contractual system. Okay, so in order to be accredited by ICANN as a registrar, you have to agree to abide by the results of the dispute resolution procedures of ours or any authorized dispute resolution provider. So we give the decision, the decision is notified to the provider and the provider must respect the terms of its contractual obligation to abide by the dispute. May I just, just combining just one more thought that combines essentially the question that you had earlier with what Dan is mentioning with what Dan has been asking. The question, what has Wipo been doing with ICANN in the face of this expansion. Director General has noted how concerns have been shared. In terms of the policies administered beyond the UDP, there's a new policy that has been established by ICANN essentially on the initiative of Wipo which is called with about a technical term a post-delegation dispute resolution policy and what was that? That is a policy that allows trademark owners going forward to also file cases not just as under the UDP against second level registrations but also against the operators of these new domains. If those operators themselves are thought to stimulate the actively infringed trademark owners in the way that they operate the new top level domain. So the idea of that procedure, although there are many safeguards and conditions that trademark owners will have to meet to be successful in it, but the idea of that procedure is to zoom out a bit from this need to target second level registrations and see whether perhaps certain domains themselves are perhaps contributing in an obvious manner to these infringements that are happening on the second level. So that is an additional mechanism which is in place and where we will see whether we will get cases in that or not. It's going to take time of course because these domains need to become truly operational in the market. Is this Wipo policy position available on your website that you submitted to ICANN? In relation to what? To this new issue on the trademark. I will send to you after this all our correspondence with ICANN which is all on the website and it includes correspondence about this very mechanism.