Opinions? Fwd: [] List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS

[DeeDee Halleck]

Only option 1.
DeeDee



On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:

> Andrew and Ron both make some good points.  What we need to ask here is:
>
> Why should ICANN have responsibility for this issue?  Certainly it seems
> unlikely that ICANN should have *sole* responsibility, if any.
>
> Also, strategies attempting to use TM infringement as the lever to enforce
> fraud seem mismatched: outright fraud is only a small part of TM law, and
> thus a narrower "hammer" ought to be devised for this narrow "nail" which
> I'd expect everyone would agree should be addressed *somehow* (nobody wants
> there to be rampant fraud with regard to charity fundraising -- I think we
> can all agree on that much).
>
> I think it's up to those who think ICANN in particular should ride to the
> rescue here to have the burden of proof to demonstrate why that is the
> case, with the default being that ICANN should not take charge of this.
> They need to demonstrate why charity fundraising fraud "breaks the DNS" per
> se and why existing law enforcement is somehow not up to the task of
> addressing such instances without ICANN taking over some substantial law
> enforcement authority.
>
> For ICANN to assist law enforcement narrowly in legitimate goals is one
> thing, but taking over law enforcement with potentially broad reach is
> quite another.  Why exactly is it specifically ICANN's duty to fix this?
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 1:21 AM -0400 7/23/12, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> >I don't know how welcome it is, but there has been some discussion of the
> >issue at ALAC.
> >
> >(What follows is my own interpretation of the at-large PoV; others'
> >mileage may vary.)
> >
> >Until recently there was widespread agreement with keeping the status quo.
> >But the stance has of late become a little more nuanced.
> >
> >We have absolutely no sympathy for the IOC or its franchisees, or IGOs in
> >general (that already have the elite ability to register in dot-int). But
> >while we don't want to make any specific exemptions for the Red Cross, we
> >feel there is a legitimate discussion to be had about attempts to spoof
> >charities.
> >
> >There, are, unfortunately, real instances of domains created to
> >deliberately confuse potential donors (especially domains quickly created
> >in the aftermath of disasters), often by in part appropriating the names
> >of known charities such as the Red Cross. There are many in At-Large who
> >believe that the domain system has some responsibility to prevent such
> >clear instances of abuse, which has the potential to expand significantly
> >upon expansion of the TLD namespace. What is less clear is how to do this,
> >but simply doing nothing does not appear to be a reasonable option. What
> >is hoped for is a reasonably easy process to stop sites designed to
> >commandeer charitable donations, in such a way that does not draw
> >substantial funds or focus from the real charities' core objectives.
> >
> >This is more of a 2LD issue than a TLD one, but very real nonetheless. We
> >would prefer to generalize it, since charities besides the Red Cross
> >suffer from this kind of fraud. And we prefer to approach this from the
> >PoV of safeguarding the trust and needs of donors and supporters as
> >opposed to trademark and trademark-like "rights". However, a complete
> >response of "do nothing, everything's OK" may indicate an ICANN that is
> >insensitive to the public consequences of its policies, and indeed a
> >mis-functioning (or at least imbalanced) MSM.
> >
> >- Evan
>



--
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120723/6b2484c5/attachment-0001.html>