FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
Carl Smith
lectriclou at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri Feb 3 15:46:43 CET 2012
I agree with T Litt's sentiments. The objective to me is also equal
protection. Especially for underfunded endeavors by small groups and
individuals. Well funded organizations are already in a better position
to defend their interests. We should resist any attempts by any group
to acquire special or unreasonable protections which do not apply to
similar groups or categories of content.
On 2/3/2012 7:30 AM, Timothe Litt wrote:
> 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-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
>
> Selected publications:
> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
>
> Website: www.komaitis.org <http://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 8^th . 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*/*jeff.neuman at neustar.biz
> <mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz> */*www.neustar.biz
> <http://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/aa96a346/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list