[ncdnhc-discuss] Draft Names Council resolution on thereservation of geographical and geopolitical names October 2001(amended)

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi YJ:

Just for clairfication:

I was the first one to propose that GAC/ICANN/DNSO works together to
achieve results to be sent to WIPO.

So, it is totally wrong to say:
> > Vany goes for "a. WIPO"

Best Regards
Vany

YJ Park wrote:
> 
> Milton,
> 
> Finally NC decided as follows:
> c. WIPO+DNSO+Others
> 
> YJ
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Actually you make a good point. I would also
> > go for "c" over "b". However, I am just doing
> > what we in USA call "damage control." I don't
> > think the Names Council as a whole will pass
> > "c", so I propose "b" which is better than "a."
> >
> > >>> "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com> 10/11/01 04:43 AM >>>
> > Vany and Milton,
> >
> > This is my personal view which I have not had chances to consult
> > with the constituency members yet. DNSO process has made us
> > feel hard to achieve the true consensus model.
> >
> > There are two different issues here.
> >
> > 1. Reserved words for geographical names
> >
> > Reserved names issues bring fair address allocation issue.
> > If then, are we ready to allocate certain range of addresses to
> > each country to achieve fairness?
> >
> > I can't answer to this complicated question, yet.
> >
> > 2. Who can have such authority to judge what names for whom
> >     Should it be ____ ?
> >
> >     a. WIPO
> >     b. WIPO+DNSO
> >     c. WIPO+DNSO+Other Regional(Int'l) Internet Community Bodies
> >     d. DNSO+Other Regional(Int'l) Internet Community Bodies
> >
> > Vany goes for "a. WIPO"
> > Milton goes for "b. WIPO + DNSO"
> > I go for "c" or "d" neither "a" nor "b"
> >
> > YJ
> >
> > OLD:
> > 4. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for governments to
> > seek solutions to the problems perceived by the GAC is the existing forum
> > of such expertise, namely the inter-governmental specialised UN agency,
> > the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
> >
> > NEW: (amendments in CAPS)
> > 4. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for governments to
> > seek
> > solutions to the problems perceived by the GAC is the exsting forum of
> > INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY expertise, namely the inter-governmental
> > specialised UN agency, the World Intellectual Property Organisation
> (WIPO),
> > COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING FORUM FOR REPRESENTING THE
> > INTERNET COMMUNITY IN POLICY MAKING, THE DNSO
> >
> >
> > > Please find below the amended proposal of the draft Names Council
> > > Resolution on the reservation of geographical and geopolitical names
> > >
> > > As Always comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > Best Regards
> > > Vany
> > >
> > >
> > > Draft Names Council resolution on the reservation of geographical and
> > > geopolitical names October 2001 v4
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > in a communiqué made by the Government Advisory Council (GAC) at its
> > > Montevideo meeting
> > > http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm "the GAC
> > > recommends that the names of countries and distinct economies,
> > > particularly those contained in the ISO 3166-1 standard, as applied by
> > > ICANN in identifying ccTLDs, should be reserved by the .info Registry,
> > > (or if registered in the Sunrise Period challenged by the Registry and,
> > > if successful, then reserved) in Latin characters in their official
> > > language(s) and in English and assigned to the corresponding governments
> > > and public authorities, at their request, for use. These names in other
> > > IDN character sets should be reserved in the same way as soon as they
> > > become available"
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > in the same communiqué the GAC further "draws the attention of ICANN and
> > > the Registries to the fact that a large number of other names, including
> > > administrative sub-divisions of countries and distinct economies as
> > > recognised in international fora, may give rise to contested
> > > registrations. Accordingly the GAC recommends that Registrars and
> > > eventual Registrants should be made aware of this".
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > >  the ICANN Board in reaction to this communiqué has resolved
> > > http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm  [01.92], "the
> > > General Counsel is directed to take appropriate action to preserve the
> > > Board's abilit to take action with respect to the registration in .info
> > > of names of countries and distinct economies contained in the ISO 3166-1
> > > list"
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > the recent report from WIPO The Recognition of Rights and the Use of
> > > Names in the Internet Domain Name System
> > > http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report   concludes:
> > > "For geographical identifiers, ... it is recognized that certain norms
> > > exist at the international level which prohibit false and deceptive
> > > indications of geographical source on goods and which protect
> > > geographical indications, or the names of geographical localities with
> > > which goods having particular characteristics derived from that locality
> > > are associated.  However, these rules apply to trade in goods and may
> > > require some adaptation to deal with the perceived range of problems
> > > with the misuse of geographical indications in the DNS.  Furthermore,
> > > the lack of an international agreed list of geographical indications
> > > would pose significant problems for the application of the UDRP in this
> > > area because of the need to make difficult choices of applicable law.
> > > It is suggested that the international framework in this area needs to
> > > be further advanced before an adequate solution is available to the
> > > misuse of geographical indications in the DNS.  As far as other
> > > geographical terms are concerned, the Report produces considerable
> > > evidence of the widespread registration of the names of countries,
> > > places within countries and indigenous peoples as domain names by
> > > persons unassociated with the countries, places or peoples.  However,
> > > these areas are not covered by existing international laws and a
> > > decision needs to be taken as to whether such laws ought to be
> > > developed".
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > the WIPO report shows that seeking to extend coverage to anything
> > > narrower that the ISO 3166 country list is fraught with problems some of
> > > which have occupied the WTO and other fora for years due to conflicts
> > > arising:
> > > between geo-political inicators e.g. Venice Italy, Venice CA; Los
> > > Angeles California USA, Los Angeles Panama City Panama.
> > > * between geographical indicators and descriptors e.g. Chablis (French
> > > wine region and Chablis-style wines from California).
> > > * between geographical indications and trademarks e.g. Torres (a
> > > Portuguese village that grows vines and Torres, a Spanish winemaker),
> > > * between geo-political and geographic indications of origin e.g. Parma
> > > the town and Parma ham.
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > the recent expansion of top-level domain names by ICANN has been a
> > > limited rather cautious test and included the names dot biz, dot name
> > > and dot info as well as chartered domain names, and that the implication
> > > of this expansion is that there are more to come in the near future.
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > the dot info registry has adopted the UDRP to enable the return of names
> > > acquired in bad faith.
> > >
> > > Whereas,
> > > the ICANN Board has approved initiatives relating to Multilingual Domain
> > > Names and these initiatives have yet to complete their work,
> > >
> > >
> > > The Names Council advises:
> > >
> > > 1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution should be
> > > exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem that is not
> > > inherent to dot info but a function of a restriction in the supply of
> > > domain names.
> > >
> > > 3. That retrospective action of the kind GAC seeks in other domain names
> > > is damaging to suppliers and confusing to users.
> > >
> > > 4. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for governments
> > > to seek solutions to the problems perceived by the GAC is the existing
> > > forum of such expertise, namely the inter-governmental specialised UN
> > > agency, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).
> > >
> > > The Names Council therefore calls upon the ICANN Board:
> > > a) to recommend to the GAC that it reconsiders its recommendation in
> > > this matter in the light of the WIPO processes and the recent WIPO
> > > report The Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet
> > > Domain Name Syste,  and,
> > > b) to propose a specific work item on this issue to be conducted by WIPO
> > > building on the work outlined in the aforementioned report; and
> > > c) to encourage the GAC and all interested parts of the ICANN structure
> > > to contribute to WIPO's work in this respect.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > Information Technology Specialist
> > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > > Tel: (507) 317-0169
> > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> > > e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa