FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
Timothe Litt
litt at ACM.ORG
Fri Feb 3 13:30:59 CET 2012
While I agree with the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim
to "protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for both.
The existing rules are supposed to provide a level and fair playing field
for all domain name registrants. To the extent that they don't,
modifications to the rules should be made to benefit all registrants - not
an especially well connected few.
The primary problem that I hear from these two is the expense of having to
defend their name(s) in multiple name spaces against fraud. I have limited
sympathy. As an individual, I do not have an institutional law department.
I don't have the infrastructure to raise funds from a generous public to
consult with an attorney for one hour - much less to have representation on
K street in DC. These organizations do. Certainly they (and I) would
prefer that the funds they raise for their worthy causes go to directly
support their work - not to fight (potential and real) fraud committed in
their name, trademark infringement and other criminal and/or unsavory acts.
But I have the same risks (save trademark, which I can't get since I'm not
engaged in commerce.) As do many other worthy non-commercial enterprises.
And many commercial enterprises - most of which have smaller revenues than
either the IOC or the IRC. Like the 1-person barbershop owned by Henry
Ford? (Of course, not *the* Henry Ford...) Why should any of these have to
pay more to mitigate/defend against these risks than these two?
Since most of the problems involve criminal acts, and we routinely hear
about how law enforcement needs more access to private information and more
control over the DNS to protect us: shouldn't the demand be for effective
law enforcement for all? As for the non-criminal problems (e.g. registering
related names such as help-<tomorrows-disaster>.org and
games-in-<tbd-city>-2038.com thru games-in-<another-city>.4113.com) - why
should these two organizations be immunized from the predation of the
cybersquatters while the rest of us have to deal with them? Why should
equally valuable charities (e.g. United Way) have higher costs? Why should
individuals/small businesses?
If the system we have is insufficient or too expensive to protect the rights
of the small domain name holder (which I suspect is, or will be the
majority), it needs to be fixed in a way that benefits them (us) as well as
the large institutions.
The IOC and the IRC would get a more support and assistance from me (and I
expect this community) if they contributed to a reform effort that addressed
the problems of all domain name registrants, rather than this proposal to
carve out special exceptions for themselves and leave the rest of us to fend
for ourselves. Especially since once they have their "special protection",
I don't see why they would use their resources to file amicus briefs in our
cases or otherwise significantly assist us...
Like any community, the internet works best when we all work together.
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
_____
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of
Konstantinos Komaitis
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 04:49
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red
Cross Names at Top Level
Dear all,
As you know, a policy group has been created to discuss the GAC's request
for special protection of the Olympic and Red Cross marks and their
variations. The group came up with a set of questions and possible options
that will be discussing in next week's call. Please note that at this stage
discussions are focusing only at the top level and not the second.
Can I please ask for your feedback on these possible recommendations? You
all know where I stand on this issue (especially with regards to the OLYMPIC
mark) and I am very annoyed that the Greek GAC rep is not with me on this L
Anyway, the next call is scheduled for next Wednesday and Jeff, chairing the
group, is asking for any comments by Sunday. Apologies for sending this
quite late.
Thanks
KK
Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,
Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building,
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulat
ion-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications:
http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org
From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Πέμπτη, 26 Ιανουαρίου 2012 1:48 πμ
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross
Names at Top Level
All,
Thanks for the very productive session today during our call. Given the
feedback on the call, we have revised the questions and options for
protecting the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level. On
the call, we discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the
notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red Cross or a
relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a) and 5(b) below). It also
occurred to me after the call that there is a sixth option, which enable an
appeal process (like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are
found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a letter of
non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the relevant governmental authority,
but still nonetheless have legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a)
and 6(b) may be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are on
the table.
As requested during the call, these questions/options are being presented
for your review and discussion within your respective groups. Please
provide any comments and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February 5th.
This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to our next call on
February 8th. Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and
time.
Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be
Treated in the Current Application Round
GAC Proposal
At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms
like the words "test" and "example" in the Applicant Guidebook (Section
2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving
consideration during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms
(in not every language) is in the section entitled "Strings Ineligible for
Registration" and would not invoke String Similarity Review.
· Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC
Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a) Are not considered "Reserved Names"
b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for similarity to the names in
Section 2.2.1.2.3.
· Option 2: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as
"reserved names" under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that:
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity
review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review,
there is no appeal.
· Option 3: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as
"modified reserved names" meaning:
a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International
Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as
applicable.
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity
review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a
Reserved Name will not pass this review.
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review,
there is no appeal.
· Option 4a - Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal
process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to
the "reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 4b - Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal
process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to
the "modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 5a: Same as Option 3 except that the "modified reserve
names" are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic
Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those
entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic
Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable.
· Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving
a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.
· Option 6a: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal
process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
"modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 6b: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal
process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
"modified reserved names." Appeal mechanism TBD.
Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to
languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3?
If yes, which additional languages?
a) Option 1: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant
Guidebook
b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in
"multiple languages - all translations of the listed names in languages used
on the Internet."
c) Option 3: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset
of languages.
Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent
gTLD rounds?
a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds
b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this current round.
c) Option 3: It should apply in this current round with no decision
on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round,
document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent
rounds based on the results of the evaluation.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> jeff.neuman at neustar.biz /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> www.neustar.biz
_____
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120203/76da9ccc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list