[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: Concerning a restricted .org

[Chris Bailey]

>Reply-To: "Pruett, Duncan" <dmtpruett at igc.org>
>From: "Pruett, Duncan" <dmtpruett at igc.org>
>To: "Chris Bailey" <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>
>Subject: Fw: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #187 - 14 msgs
>Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 10:30:48 +0100
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
>
>Chris,
>
>I'm typing this from home, and here I'm not a member of the NCDNHC list, but
>something has to be said about Vany's comments. Please feel free to forward
>this to the list on my behalf (I won't be checking the list for a while, but
>I hope this contribution helps people/Vany understand the problem). In
>addition to arguing this out with everyone
>on the list, I went through this whole discussion with her on a subway train
>on the way to a reception during the Stockholm meetings - why can't people
>see how problematic this restriction thing is? Making .org restricted is the
>BEST way to open up the TLD for abuse. The easy example she gives of company
>ABC is too simplistic. That's how it should work in a perfect world. But it
>assumes that an international definition of a non-profit is possible. But it
>just isn't!
>
>Let me give better examples:
>
>Nicaraguans for Intellectuals Killed or Exiled (NIKE) registers "nike.org".
>They're a non-profit human rights group. Nike (the corporation) comes along
>and takes them to court using the special DRP under discussion. They
>challenge the non-profit credentials of the group in question. In order to
>prove that they are bona fide, Nicaraguans for Intellectuals Killed or
>Exiled have to produce their non-profit "registration" they got from the
>Nicaraguan government. But they don't have any, and it turns out that in the
>eyes of the Nicaraguan authorities, NIKE is an outlaw organisation (since it
>is critical of the government's policies) which would never register them as
>a non-profit. Nike (the corporation) can't have the name itself, but, like
>with the UDRP, it can demand that the registration be cancelled.
>
>Another: An IP lawyers' group in the US (a bona fide non-proft with the very
>trustworthy 501c3 status) wants "rights.org". But right now it's held by a
>human rights group in Zimbabwe critical of President Mugabe. Mugabe
>challenges the registration, to prevent this group having such a high
>profile on the internet, and the arbitrators are told by a sovereign state
>that the registration has been made by a "terrorist group". Do they have any
>choice but to accept Mugabe's definition. Once the domain name is cancelled,
>the IP Lawyer's group gets the name! A group in a country where there is
>less respect for the rule of law, or where the system is corrupt will suffer
>from an internationally enforcable definition. The group in the US, where
>there is a rock solid, uncorruptible system in place, will gain from an
>"international" definition.
>
>Another: In Tunisia, the government sets up a puppet NGO which registers
>"amnestytunisia.org" to put out positive human rights information about
>Tunisia. People in Tunisia and elsewhere may be duped into thinking that
>this site (filled with government propaganda) is linked with Amnesty
>International, whose real Tunisian chapter isn't even involved in putting
>out information about human rights in Tunisia (Amnesty local groups only
>campaign on issues outside their own country). Amnesty International
>challenges the registration, saying that the name is misleading and that the
>group is a fake. The sponsored TLD arbitration panel would be able to say
>that the local group is a registered non-profit, based on the national
>Tunisian criteria, and based on the organisation's papers. The complaint
>would fail. The current UDRP would give Amnesty a better chance of curbing
>the abuse than a sponsored DRP.
>
>Vany must look beyond the nice easy example of how the DRP could help, and
>look for ways in which it might do damage. Whether .org is sponsored or
>unsponsored is far less important than whether it is restricted or not. It
>should not be.
>
>This is an area where the democratic international trade union movement has
>a long experience. Groups (particularly membership organisations - think
>_freedom of association_ here) that do _good_ work in the field of rights
>and democracy often either undermined, or completely outlawed by their own
>governments.
>
>Happy holidays!
>
>Duncan