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

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Duncan, Chris and all:

Thank you for bring this issue here.  And I think that is time to
separate things.

Duncan, I think you are confusing "Restriction"  with "Challenging
Registrations".

The Restriction part is about not allowing certain kind of entities to
register in a TLD.
For example, regardless which non-commercial organizations will register
NIKE, for sure a 
commercial organization named NIKE won't be allowed to register inside
.ORG, because the
charter would prevent a commercial organization to register in .ORG.

The "DRP process" is about challenging registrations.  Entites will
Challenge Registrations 
regardless if the TLD is Unesponsored Unrestricted or Unesponsored
Restricted or Sponsored Restricted
or Sponsonsored Unrestricted (the only category that according to ICANN
doesn't exists).  But if a good DRP
process is achieved inside .ORG a decision with clear preference to the
Non-Commercial organizations could be achieved.

Now, stablished that Restriction doesn't means "Challenging
Registrations", then we can go futher.
One thing is the Charter, other thing is the kind of DRP used.  The
relationship betweem them is that
the Charter will stablish which kind of DRP will be used and how it will
be applied (to all domain names regardless
registration or only to registrations that will take place after
divesture, to give clear advantage to Non-Commercial Organizations
over Commercial ones or make it similar as UDRP?, to follow a fair
process when the complaiant is amongst two Non-COmmercials?).

Taking your own example:  NIKE the shoes, NIKE the Nicaraguan
Non-profit.  The a good DRP process for .ORG would dismiss
inmediatly any complaint if iniciated by NIKE the sports shoes because
it is a commercial.   A good DRP for
.ORG would have clear advantages for NOn-COmmercial organizations and
would give clear preference to NIKE the Nicaraguan NOn-Profit
over such domain if the complaiant is NIKE the Nicaragua Non-Profit.  
This would be possible if .ORG is Sponsored Restricted, because in
Sponsored Restricted you have the freedom to define the Charter and to
also design your own DRP process.  With Sponsored Unrestricted
there's no charter as such and if, such a category would exists in the
future, probably the DRP process would be the UDRP we know.

Now lets take another example you gave:  US Non-Profit IP Lawyers vs
Zimbawan Human Rights Organization.
A good DRP process would assure to both a fair process regardless their
actual legal status, since in .ORG
there should be no difference between non-commercial organizations and
non-commercial activities.  
However, Duncan, in this scenario is totally irrelevant if .ORG is U-U
or U-R or S-U or S-R. You can have the scenario you exposes with actual
model of .ORG.  The case you are exposing here is about Intelectual
Property rights in the Non-Commercial World, not about restriction.

And the most difficult example you gave:  Tunisian government fake
non-commercial organization vs Legitimate Non-Commercial Organization.
I clarify you, again, this is NOT A RESTRICTION issue.  This is an issue
of proper DRP process just like the previous
case regardless if .ORG is UU, UR, SU or SR.

And in the Unrestricted category, there are abuses already but the abuse
comes from the Commercial interests that registers domains
names only to protect intelectual property preventing that a legimit
Non-Commercial organization (whether formally or not incorporated
legally in their country) can be identified inside .ORG by its domain
name that, by casuality, it is the same than the domain name of the
commercial one.

Can we agree at this point that:
1.  Sponsored Restricted is the most effective way to prevent that
commercial entities take away domain names that otherwise non-commercial
could use for legimit purposes?
2.  That Challenging Registrations is an issue about the DRP adopted and
not about Restriction when you are dealing with the scenario
Non-Commercial vs Non-Commercial?
3.  That a .ORG Charter in the model of Sponsored Restricted is open to
define that there's no difference between Non-Commercial Organizations
legally incorporated and Informal Non-Commercial groups and activities,
and as such, the DRP process should not make any discrimination just
because lack of legal documents?
4.  That being an "Sponsored" TLD is very important in the same level
than being "Restricted or Unrestricted" because it obligates the
Sponsoring Registry to engage with its target community?

Looking forward to read your comments.

Best Regards
Vany


Chris Bailey wrote:
> 
> >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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org