Re: [ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th
At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of the Applicant Guidebook). In 2007, IGOs petitioned ICANN to create a dispute resolution mechanism that would apply to them. After a lot of work, the recommendation (from both staff and GNSO) was that nothing be done, largely based on the belief that the issue would be well covered by the new gTLD process. Something that I would claim did not happen and which is the root of a lot of the current problems we are now facing with IGOs (and the IOC which is arguably an NGO I believe). Alan
On 21 September 2012 12:01, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: In 2007, IGOs petitioned ICANN to create a dispute resolution mechanism
that would apply to them. After a lot of work, the recommendation (from both staff and GNSO) was that nothing be done, largely based on the belief that the issue would be well covered by the new gTLD process. Something that I would claim did not happen and which is the root of a lot of the current problems we are now facing with IGOs (and the IOC which is arguably an NGO I believe).
This is very useful. If you have any references to that, it may be useful in an ALAC statement to the Board. - Evan
On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of the Applicant Guidebook).
Hi, I am afraid that stipulation refers to "trademarks" not registered but protected by statute or treaty, which consistent with TMCH. Anyway URS is a provisionary measure that cannot really solve igo problem. Btw, IOC is a igo by treaty but RC is specially defined by treaty for its neutral humanitarian operation. Hong -- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Hello All, I just want to say my appreciation of the on going discussions. Thank you to all of you. If I had a say, I would support dissociating the RC and IOC issues. Best, Fatimata 2012/9/22 Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>
On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of the Applicant Guidebook).
Hi, I am afraid that stipulation refers to "trademarks" not registered but protected by statute or treaty, which consistent with TMCH. Anyway URS is a provisionary measure that cannot really solve igo problem.
Btw, IOC is a igo by treaty but RC is specially defined by treaty for its neutral humanitarian operation.
Hong
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
Hello All, I just want to say my appreciation of the on going discussions. Thank you to all of you. If I had a say, I would support dissociating the RC and IOC issues. Best, Fatimata 2012/9/22 Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com>
On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Alan Greenberg wrote:
At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked public-interest names.
Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
Hong
The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of the Applicant Guidebook).
Hi, I am afraid that stipulation refers to "trademarks" not registered but protected by statute or treaty, which consistent with TMCH. Anyway URS is a provisionary measure that cannot really solve igo problem.
Btw, IOC is a igo by treaty but RC is specially defined by treaty for its neutral humanitarian operation.
Hong
-- Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Hong Xue