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

[Kent Crispin]

Pruett, Duncan" <dmtpruett at igc.org> wrote:
>something has to be said about Vany's comments.[...] 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.
>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.

This example and the rest Duncan mentions, are far fetched strawmen that
further assume tht "DRP under discussion" was written by idiots. 
Moreover, Duncan apparently completely misunderstands the nature of the
proposed DRP.  In particular, the DRP in question is to give a
non-profit organization the right to challenge a for-profit organization
that is using a .org domain name for commercial purposes.  The idea that
the DRP would give anyone on earth the standing to challenge any .org
name is silly. 

> 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.

Nope.  Nike the company would have no standing whatsoever to make a claim, 
since it is a for-profit, and by definintion couldn't use the nike.org 
domain.  Therefore, they have no standing to even bring an action under 
the DRP.

[...]

>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.

Of course they do.  Depends entirely on how the DRP is written.

A ruthless entity with lots of power and money behind them has a number
of far more serious threats at their disposal -- imprisonment, torture,
death -- and if the only tool at the disposal of the oppressor is
harassing the human rights group over their domain name, that group is
in pretty damn good shape.  Moreover, if we are talking about brute
oppressive powere, the registry operator itself is just as susceptible
to coercion as a DRP arbitrator: someone could simply threaten the
registry operations staff with asassination if they don't reassign the
name.

The bottom line is, once one postulates extreme lawlessness, then no 
example is very meaningful.

[...]

>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.

In fact, of course, Amnesty International *shouldn't* be able to attack
that domain name.  "Amnesty" is a generic word; "Tunisia" is the name of
a country, and, while the country may or may not have claim to it, it
certainly has as much claim as amnesty international. 


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain