Second level idn's and the STI report
As we know the The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report which is now available for comment at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti I am today following a thread on a local NY list where a fellow who has the following: http://www.mobileappstore.com/ http://www.mobileappstore.net/ http://www.mobileappstore.org/ http://www.mobileappstore.mobi/ was contacted by the owner of: http://手机应用商店.cn (parked) http://手机应用商店.com (resolves to http://www.mobilecloudapps.com/ ) 手机应用商店 translates to mobileappstore He's a little miffed, saying things like
WTF!! how is this going to work???
I could register the domain for Paypal.com in hewbrew tomorrow and anyone who use the hewbrew version of their keyboard would be going to a totally different website that i control and as long as i'm not phishing there is nothing paypal can do??
Am I totally misinterpreting the situation here?
I've responded pointing out that the proposed TC and URS are aimed to deal with this sort of thing, and the GPML was a non-starter. My question is, how likely is it that, and how much, will the new processes apply to second-level IDN's on existing registries, or are they likely to stick with the UDRP exclusively? Joly ISOC-NY -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
In the first place, how does one knows that 手机应用商店 is indeed mobileappstore? Does he even provide a Chinese website on mobileappstore.com that he cares about? If not, why bother by 手机应用商店? -James Seng 2009/12/28 Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>:
As we know the The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report which is now available for comment at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti
I am today following a thread on a local NY list where a fellow who has the following: http://www.mobileappstore.com/ http://www.mobileappstore.net/ http://www.mobileappstore.org/ http://www.mobileappstore.mobi/
was contacted by the owner of:
http://手机应用商店.cn (parked) http://手机应用商店.com (resolves to http://www.mobilecloudapps.com/ )
手机应用商店 translates to mobileappstore
He's a little miffed, saying things like
WTF!! how is this going to work???
I could register the domain for Paypal.com in hewbrew tomorrow and anyone who use the hewbrew version of their keyboard would be going to a totally different website that i control and as long as i'm not phishing there is nothing paypal can do??
Am I totally misinterpreting the situation here?
I've responded pointing out that the proposed TC and URS are aimed to deal with this sort of thing, and the GPML was a non-starter.
My question is, how likely is it that, and how much, will the new processes apply to second-level IDN's on existing registries, or are they likely to stick with the UDRP exclusively?
Joly
ISOC-NY
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
At 28/12/2009 12:33 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
I am today following a thread on a local NY list where a fellow who has the following: <text omitted>
was contacted by the owner of:
<text omitted>
translates to mobileappstore
Although not the subject of your question, I am curious about the substance of the "contact". Was he accused of improper use of domain names, offered a business deal, or what???
<text omitted>
I've responded pointing out that the proposed TC and URS are aimed to deal with this sort of thing, and the GPML was a non-starter
My question is, how likely is it that, and how much, will the new processes apply to second-level IDN's on existing registries, or are they likely to stick with the UDRP exclusively? The TC and URS are being proposed as a component of the new gTLD process. They have nothing to do with existing gTLDs. The URS potentially could at some future point be incorporated into the current gTLD contracts by a PDP process, by contract negotiation or by a funnel request. Or a future revision of the UDRP might incorporate aspects of the URS (WIPO is currently discussing a related change that they sat will not require any change to the UDRP).
As specified in the STI report, the TC is only for pre-launch processes and so is totally unrelated to existing gTLDs. There were minority opinions (including At-large) advocating post-launch use (or further study of such possible use) of the TC for Trademark Claims, but this is not a formal part of the STI report and in any case, would only apply to new gTLDs. A Trademark Claims process (pre-launch, or post launch if ever implemented) gives a potential registrant a notice that the name they are trying to register *may* conflict with a formal trademark (*may*, because trademarks are tied to specific products/services and geographic regions which may not be applicable). There is not current intention to have "meaning" apply, so the example you cite is not covered at all, even for pre-launch and new gTLDs. The above notwithstanding, TC and URS do apply to IDN second level domain names, just as does the current UDRP. Alan
2009/12/28 Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
As we know the The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report which is now available for comment at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti
I am today following a thread on a local NY list where a fellow who has the following: http://www.mobileappstore.com/ http://www.mobileappstore.net/ http://www.mobileappstore.org/ http://www.mobileappstore.mobi/
was contacted by the owner of:
http://手机应用商店.cn <http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn> (parked) http://手机应用商店.com <http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.com> (resolves to http://www.mobilecloudapps.com/ )
手机应用商店 translates to mobileappstore
He's a little miffed, saying things like
WTF!! how is this going to work???
Hi, it is weird. TC, URS or UDRP can only handle the conflicts between trademarks and domain names. Neither "mobileappstore" nor "手机应用商店<http://%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%BA%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E5%95%86%E5%BA%97.cn/>" seem trademarkable for obvious descriptiveness and non-distinctiveness. Neither do I believe that either domain name has acquired the secondary meaning through use so as to suffice for any trademark claim. If no trademark involved, no trademark measure applicable at all. Hong
I could register the domain for Paypal.com in hewbrew tomorrow and
anyone who use the hewbrew version of their keyboard would be going to a totally different website that i control and as long as i'm not phishing there is nothing paypal can do??
Am I totally misinterpreting the situation here?
I've responded pointing out that the proposed TC and URS are aimed to deal with this sort of thing, and the GPML was a non-starter.
My question is, how likely is it that, and how much, will the new processes apply to second-level IDN's on existing registries, or are they likely to stick with the UDRP exclusively?
Joly
ISOC-NY
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
He's a little miffed, saying things like
WTF!! how is this going to work???
Hi, it is weird. TC, URS or UDRP can only handle the conflicts between trademarks and domain names. Neither "mobileappstore" nor "手机应用商店<http://%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%BA%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E5%95%86%E5%BA%97.cn/>" seem trademarkable for obvious descriptiveness and non-distinctiveness. Neither do I believe that either domain name has acquired the secondary meaning through use so as to suffice for any trademark claim. If no trademark involved, no trademark measure applicable at all.
Hong
Absolutely. Although since mobile apps are one of the fastest growing sources of revenue on the net right now, it's almost as valuable as having something as generic as business.com etc.. Why I posted was to show that, while we have all been putting a lot of thought into new gTLDs, it could be that the already commenced rollout of second level IDNs, particularly in the .com arena, is going to cause as much of a ruction. This was a tech-savvy fellow shocked! to find out that he had by no means nailed down the name even in .com. He had not considered the possibilty of writing the same word in a different character set, let alone in translation. I'm sure he's not the only one who will be coming to the realization that the Latin character set is by no longer global in reach in this day and age, and we will hear many more howls of pain. Meanwhile more $$ for verisign etc.. In answer to your question of motive Alan, it wasn't clear, but I think it was very likely to offer a deal, even if just to explore a possible partnership in finding deep pocketed buyer. With the new restrictions on .cn registrations we're likely to see a lot more chinese .com speculative activity one would imagine. What At-Large could do is perhaps review ICANN's published guidelines on this, and their accessability. When the guy posted, the only references in response, were a couple of newspaper articles and wikipedia. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody writing a user orientated executive summary of the key implications of IDN's for holders of second and third level domains? Christian On 28 Dec 2009, at 09:58, Joly MacFie wrote:
He's a little miffed, saying things like
WTF!! how is this going to work???
Hi, it is weird. TC, URS or UDRP can only handle the conflicts between trademarks and domain names. Neither "mobileappstore" nor "手机应用商店<http://%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%BA%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E5%95%86%E5%BA%97.cn/>" seem trademarkable for obvious descriptiveness and non-distinctiveness. Neither do I believe that either domain name has acquired the secondary meaning through use so as to suffice for any trademark claim. If no trademark involved, no trademark measure applicable at all.
Hong
Absolutely. Although since mobile apps are one of the fastest growing sources of revenue on the net right now, it's almost as valuable as having something as generic as business.com etc..
Why I posted was to show that, while we have all been putting a lot of thought into new gTLDs, it could be that the already commenced rollout of second level IDNs, particularly in the .com arena, is going to cause as much of a ruction.
This was a tech-savvy fellow shocked! to find out that he had by no means nailed down the name even in .com. He had not considered the possibilty of writing the same word in a different character set, let alone in translation.
I'm sure he's not the only one who will be coming to the realization that the Latin character set is by no longer global in reach in this day and age, and we will hear many more howls of pain. Meanwhile more $$ for verisign etc..
In answer to your question of motive Alan, it wasn't clear, but I think it was very likely to offer a deal, even if just to explore a possible partnership in finding deep pocketed buyer.
With the new restrictions on .cn registrations we're likely to see a lot more chinese .com speculative activity one would imagine.
What At-Large could do is perhaps review ICANN's published guidelines on this, and their accessability. When the guy posted, the only references in response, were a couple of newspaper articles and wikipedia.
j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
2009/12/28 Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net>:
Anybody writing a user orientated executive summary of the key implications of IDN's for holders of second and third level domains?
Christian
Deafening silence. The fellow - Dean Collins - has now blogged about his experience. http://blog.collins.net.pr/2009/12/de-latinisation-of-web.html Now discovering cyrillic and that r's are p's etc. e.g. раyраl.com j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
2009/12/29 Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Deafening silence.
Hi Joly, We're all volunteers here. Some have been tied up doing other things over the last week or so. Some of us have even been involved in ICANN-related stuff in other fields. You're as much a part of the solution as anyone here. If we all just stood back and waited for things to be done by someone else, we'd be getting exactly the response you're suggesting. Much of what we have been able to accomplish have been the work of individuals who have taken initiative. This is indeed an important issue, as as part of At-Large it's up to us -- you as much as me or any other subscriber to this email list -- to raise this up the food chain, come up with a specific plan and then assemble appropriate resources to execute. Even if ICANN itself does not see the need to alert existing registrants regarding confusion and possible scams arising out of the growth of IDNs, At-Large can do so itself. But I think we can indeed make the case that ICANN itself bears responsibility here. I'll put it on the agenda for the next NARALO meeting; let's start to figure out what to do about it, and who amongst us will take the lead(s)... Are you in? - Evan
I can sympathies with the potential idn homographs problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_homograph_attack This is a well-known problem since 2005 tracing back to http://james.seng.sg/2005/03/17/idn-parody-on-verisigncom/ And I would be happy to work with Evan on this. I cannot, however, understand the issues/complains about translation. Why would someone who don't understand Chinese knows that "手机应用商店.cn" means mobileappstore.com? For that matter, how would a Chinese knows "手机应用商店.cn" translate to mobileappstore.com? The fact is they don't. 手机应用商店.cn could likely be translate to handphoneusageshop.cn or that mobileappstore.com could be translated to 移动软件商店.com. -James Seng On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
2009/12/29 Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Deafening silence.
Hi Joly,
We're all volunteers here. Some have been tied up doing other things over the last week or so. Some of us have even been involved in ICANN-related stuff in other fields.
You're as much a part of the solution as anyone here. If we all just stood back and waited for things to be done by someone else, we'd be getting exactly the response you're suggesting. Much of what we have been able to accomplish have been the work of individuals who have taken initiative.
This is indeed an important issue, as as part of At-Large it's up to us -- you as much as me or any other subscriber to this email list -- to raise this up the food chain, come up with a specific plan and then assemble appropriate resources to execute.
Even if ICANN itself does not see the need to alert existing registrants regarding confusion and possible scams arising out of the growth of IDNs, At-Large can do so itself. But I think we can indeed make the case that ICANN itself bears responsibility here.
I'll put it on the agenda for the next NARALO meeting; let's start to figure out what to do about it, and who amongst us will take the lead(s)...
Are you in?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
2009/12/29 James Seng <james@seng.sg>
I cannot, however, understand the issues/complains about translation.
Why would someone who don't understand Chinese knows that "手机应用商店.cn<http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn> " means mobileappstore.com?
For that matter, how would a Chinese knows "手机应用商店.cn<http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn>" translate to mobileappstore.com?
The fact is they don't.
手机应用商店.cn <http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn> could likely be translate to handphoneusageshop.cn or that mobileappstore.com could be translated to 移动软件商店.com<http://xn--5nqw3gqvcuuovp8as50a.com> .
This is all correct. However, none of the factual accuracy of the above statements may prevent an aggressive and/or unethical registrar from pressuring domain owners to "protect" their name by buying IDN versions. Such "marketing" may suggest implied threats that if you don't try to buy a name of similar maening (or similar phoenetic sound) in another language the owners of IDNs may come after *you*. Some of the above mail explains correctly why these threats are not valid, but this may not be understood by casual registrants. The purpose of an At-Large initiative on the matter -- at least as I see it -- is to provide information to registrants (and the public) regarding the coming growth of IDNs. Such information should address issues that could become fears, such as: - Are IDNs even valid? Will they take me to a malware site? - How do I get to domains that I can't type on my keyboard? - How do I need to protect my domains against others that look similar? (ie, francais.com versus français.com <http://xn--franais-xxa.com>) - How do I protect myself against translated versions of my site's name? (ie mobileappstore.com vs 移动软件商店.com <http://xn--5nqw3gqvcuuovp8as50a.com/>) - How do I protect myself against IDNs that translate into similar meanings to my site name? (ie, mobileappstore.com <http://mobileappstore.com/> vs 手机应用商店.com<http://%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%BA%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E5%95%86%E5%BA%97.cn/> ) - How do I prevent such sites making trademark claims against my domain for the same reasons? The answers to these questions may seem evident to people here, but not IMO to the general public. And I certainly see the fear and confusion that may accompany IDNs being exploited by unethical people. Informing the public of the issues about IDNs, reduicing fear and fraud, are what I see to be the main issues here. To be certain, many questions and fears about IDNs will come not from new users, but from longtime users who are used to an all-latin-alphabet Internet and will be surprised (and maybe even scared) of unrecognizable names. I am not sure, however, if these are the same as Joly's concerns. - Evan
This is all correct. However, none of the factual accuracy of the above statements may prevent an aggressive and/or unethical registrar from pressuring domain owners to "protect" their name by buying IDN versions. Such "marketing" may suggest implied threats that if you don't try to buy a name of similar maening (or similar phoenetic sound) in another language the owners of IDNs may come after *you*.
Okay. I think most westerners would be shocked at some of the tactics aggressive Chinese registrars would use to get someone to register a domain name.
The answers to these questions may seem evident to people here, but not IMO to the general public. And I certainly see the fear and confusion that may accompany IDNs being exploited by unethical people. Informing the public of the issues about IDNs, reduicing fear and fraud, are what I see to be the main issues here.
To be certain, many questions and fears about IDNs will come not from new users, but from longtime users who are used to an all-latin-alphabet Internet and will be surprised (and maybe even scared) of unrecognizable names.
I am not sure, however, if these are the same as Joly's concerns.
Fair enough. Let me know how I can contribute :-) -James Seng
great questions + Should users consider trademarking the punycode of their registered names? Christian On 29 Dec 2009, at 17:48, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/12/29 James Seng <james@seng.sg>
I cannot, however, understand the issues/complains about translation.
Why would someone who don't understand Chinese knows that "手机应用商店.cn<http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn> " means mobileappstore.com?
For that matter, how would a Chinese knows "手机应用商店.cn<http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn>" translate to mobileappstore.com?
The fact is they don't.
手机应用商店.cn <http://xn--czr79ska309ap0hmnx.cn> could likely be translate to handphoneusageshop.cn or that mobileappstore.com could be translated to 移动软件商店.com<http://xn--5nqw3gqvcuuovp8as50a.com> .
This is all correct. However, none of the factual accuracy of the above statements may prevent an aggressive and/or unethical registrar from pressuring domain owners to "protect" their name by buying IDN versions. Such "marketing" may suggest implied threats that if you don't try to buy a name of similar maening (or similar phoenetic sound) in another language the owners of IDNs may come after *you*.
Some of the above mail explains correctly why these threats are not valid, but this may not be understood by casual registrants.
The purpose of an At-Large initiative on the matter -- at least as I see it -- is to provide information to registrants (and the public) regarding the coming growth of IDNs. Such information should address issues that could become fears, such as:
- Are IDNs even valid? Will they take me to a malware site?
- How do I get to domains that I can't type on my keyboard?
- How do I need to protect my domains against others that look similar? (ie, francais.com versus français.com <http://xn--franais-xxa.com>)
- How do I protect myself against translated versions of my site's name? (ie mobileappstore.com vs 移动软件商店.com <http://xn--5nqw3gqvcuuovp8as50a.com/>)
- How do I protect myself against IDNs that translate into similar meanings to my site name? (ie, mobileappstore.com <http://mobileappstore.com/> vs 手机应用商店.com<http://%E6%89%8B%E6%9C%BA%E5%BA%94%E7%94%A8%E5%95%86%E5%BA%97.cn/> )
- How do I prevent such sites making trademark claims against my domain for the same reasons?
The answers to these questions may seem evident to people here, but not IMO to the general public. And I certainly see the fear and confusion that may accompany IDNs being exploited by unethical people. Informing the public of the issues about IDNs, reduicing fear and fraud, are what I see to be the main issues here.
To be certain, many questions and fears about IDNs will come not from new users, but from longtime users who are used to an all-latin-alphabet Internet and will be surprised (and maybe even scared) of unrecognizable names.
I am not sure, however, if these are the same as Joly's concerns.
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I cannot, however, understand the issues/complains about translation.
Why would someone who don't understand Chinese knows that "手机应用商店.cn" means mobileappstore.com?
If this were a problem, it would have been a problem for the past decade. Nobody proposes special treatment for magasindesappsmobiles.com, so why would a Chinese translation be any different? The homograph issue is well known and has attracted a great deal of attention over the years. People who are concerned about it should start by reading the archives of the IETF's IDN working groups. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
On 12/29/2009 08:39 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Even if ICANN itself does not see the need to alert existing registrants regarding confusion and possible scams arising out of the growth of IDNs, At-Large can do so itself....
One might want to consider the personal and institutional risk of becoming the defendant in a defamation or other civil action if one does go forth and issue an "alert". There is a fine line between an unlawful scam and a clever marketing ploy. And publishing a negative statement about someone based merely on looking at a domain name and not examining actual activity and behavior may not be a safe course of action. --karl--
here's a new response from the original thread: That's old news, and was essentially fixed over 4 years ago in a similar
variant. The issue a few years back, was that a browser URL bar would display a unicode encoded paypal.com , but direct a browser to something like "xn--pypal-4ve.com" -- which is the ASCII encoding of the the character set.
In any event, that issue -- and this one -- is not an issue with ICANN, but with the browsers and OS.
Bruce Schneier discussing it in 2005
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/unicode_url_hac_1.html
Also some stuff from Shmoo ( security think tank featuring directors of Apache, PGP, etc ) - which first published the paypal example. http://www.shmoo.com/idn/
The shmoo page contans the IDN (interrnational domain name) advisory papers. The issue dates back to 2001 when "Homograph Attacks" were first identified.
The underlying issue, is that homographs look the same, but are not the same. ie: a cyrillc c vs an ascii c.
There have been a number of proposed fixes, which haven't been adopted by browsers and os, particulary that Browsers / OS should be saying when there is mixed-code characters, or when a character is in a non-native character set. this was actually part of IETF rfc 3490, which is the base IDN standards rfc ie: given A = ascii , C= Cyrillic warn if CCCCCCC on ascii browser warn if AAAAAAAA on cyrillc browser warn if AAAACCCC on any browser
the one thing that ICANN did drop the ball on -- and its kind of unfair saying that, as it would have been very hard to implement equitably -- is that they didn't enforce one of the smarter DNS level security concepts -- that possible characters for IDN domain names be locked down by TLD.
in any event, the issue is much less at the fault of ICANN than it is with the browsers and operating systems.
// Jonathan Vanasco
e. jonathan@2xlp.com w. http://findmeon.com/user/jvanasco blog. http://destructuring.net
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
2009/12/29 Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
One might want to consider the personal and institutional risk of becoming the defendant in a defamation or other civil action if one does go forth and issue an "alert".
There is a fine line between an unlawful scam and a clever marketing ploy. And publishing a negative statement about someone based merely on looking at a domain name and not examining actual activity and behavior may not be a safe course of action.
Nowhere in my mail did I indicate an intent to identify specific bad practise, let alone bad actors. Registrants ought to know that they cannot be the successful target of an IP takedown attempt by a similar-meaning or soundalike IDN, even within the same TLD. If they still choose to buy IDNs for defensive or other purposes, that's their business. The Business Constituency has the task of making sure that commercial domain owners are aware of these rights; I suppose that NCUC/NCSG should be taking up that cause on behalf of non-commercial registrants; I can raise the issue with my contacts at NCSG about this. But whether the catalyst is the BC, NCSG, At-Large of ICANN corporate, all I'm asking for is an effort to make sure that registrants make decisions (such as the need to make defensive registrations) based on awareness rather than uncertainty. The intended result is that they may react in an informed manner to any campaigns targeted at them. Would this also be actionable? In the long term, a GNSO committee (of which I'm a member) is working to define statements of registrants' rights -- both to enumerate what exists and to develop a manifesto, so to speak, of what they ultimately should be. - Evan
On 12/29/2009 04:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the long term, a GNSO committee (of which I'm a member) is working to define statements of registrants' rights -- both to enumerate what exists and to develop a manifesto, so to speak, of what they ultimately should be.
Moving away from domain name practices that are questionable, one might want to look at another issue, which is the panic driven, and potentially expensive, drive to splatter protective registrations across all TLDs... I have been advocating in certain legal forums and meetings that we in the US consider an amendment to the Lanham Act, which is the US' trademark law, to say something along these lines: No person who has a US Federally registered mark shall lose any protection of that mark as a result of not acquiring any domain name in any or all top level or subordinate domains. The idea here is to prevent the panic driven registration of names on the basis of a perceived (or law-firm drummed-up frenzy) need to register everywhere in order to protect the base rights in a trademark. Now, given that trademarks are only a small part of the range of rights that people might have in names - such as their personal names, the names of their deity(ies), the names of their residences, etc - perhaps I ought to rephrase things so that the proposal becomes: No person who has a US Federally registered mark or other cognizable rights in a name or phrase shall lose any protection of that mark, name or phrase as a result of not acquiring any domain name in any or all top level or subordinate domains. --karl--
Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 12/29/2009 04:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
In the long term, a GNSO committee (of which I'm a member) is working to define statements of registrants' rights -- both to enumerate what exists and to develop a manifesto, so to speak, of what they ultimately should be.
Moving away from domain name practices that are questionable, one might want to look at another issue, which is the panic driven, and potentially expensive, drive to splatter protective registrations across all TLDs...
I have been advocating in certain legal forums and meetings that we in the US consider an amendment to the Lanham Act, which is the US' trademark law, to say something along these lines:
No person who has a US Federally registered mark shall lose any protection of that mark as a result of not acquiring any domain name in any or all top level or subordinate domains.
The idea here is to prevent the panic driven registration of names on the basis of a perceived (or law-firm drummed-up frenzy) need to register everywhere in order to protect the base rights in a trademark.
Now, given that trademarks are only a small part of the range of rights that people might have in names - such as their personal names, the names of their deity(ies), the names of their residences, etc - perhaps I ought to rephrase things so that the proposal becomes:
No person who has a US Federally registered mark or other cognizable rights in a name or phrase shall lose any protection of that mark, name or phrase as a result of not acquiring any domain name in any or all top level or subordinate domains.
--karl--
I would certainly agree that is a good beginning. However I have a question or two and your are the expert here. How would this scale? How does jurisdiction overlap in terms of the intended users of the second level IDN's? This is not considering malicious behavior. What stops me in another country from deliberately imposing on a US registered trademark. I suspect this would the also fall under the Madrid Protocol? Or not? I guess I am opening up a can of worms. Derek
Actually there are two discussion here. Karl is trying to solve one problem : That under US trademark laws, as a trademark owner, there are case precedences that if you do not enforce your trademark, by default, you lose it. You are talking about another problem : That how does a trademark owner have "rights" on a domain name registrations under gTLD. There are existing procedure and processes like UDRP that already handling it. -James Seng
I would certainly agree that is a good beginning. However I have a question or two and your are the expert here.
How would this scale? How does jurisdiction overlap in terms of the intended users of the second level IDN's? This is not considering malicious behavior.
What stops me in another country from deliberately imposing on a US registered trademark. I suspect this would the also fall under the Madrid Protocol? Or not?
I guess I am opening up a can of worms.
Derek
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Joly MacFie ha scritto:
As we know the The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its Report which is now available for comment at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti
Many years ago, when the use of non-Latin characters was starting to be introduced "experimentally", I raised the following issue (I think it was at the KL meeting in 2004). In non-English Latin-script Western and Eastern European languages there are lots of accents. When the Internet started to grow, people from Europe started to register "de-accentized" strings for their domains. So, for example, people that wanted to devote a site to universities ("università" in Italian) would register universita.com, with a non-accented "a". Just imagine what would happen if someone else now registered the properly spelled version, "università.com", which would possibly come out higher in search engine queries for "università", be seen as the "correct" version by the users, and in the end undermine the original website and business. People would have a reasonable expectation that, once the proper "accented" version becomes available, people having registered the non-accented version would have priority in getting it. (Actually, the original expectation was that a variants system would be developed for accented Latin characters, so to avoid the problem altogether.) However, no one at ICANN seemed interested in the issue - actually, no one even seemed to understand it. Everyone was just focused on two issues - introduce a bigger market by allowing new domain names, and keeping the governments from non-Latin countries happy. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:34:32 +0100, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Just imagine what would happen if someone else now registered the properly spelled version, "università.com", which would possibly come out higher in search engine queries for "università", be seen as the "correct" version by the users, and in the end undermine the original website and business.
People would have a reasonable expectation that, once the proper "accented" version becomes available, people having registered the non-accented version would have priority in getting it. (Actually, the original expectation was that a variants system would be developed for accented Latin characters, so to avoid the problem altogether.)
However, no one at ICANN seemed interested in the issue - actually, no one even seemed to understand it. Everyone was just focused on two issues - introduce a bigger market by allowing new domain names, and keeping the governments from non-Latin countries happy.
I concur. We had a advisory committee meeting of the .lu ccTLD some months ago, and one of the issues on the table were IDNs, and how to prevent user confusion. Right now for example, all the public authorities are grouped under the "etat.lu" domain. Citizens expect to find the same web site under "état.lu". If they would find another unrelated web site, that would somehow hurt the trust relationship between the citizen and the state. We finally decided to have a sunrise period where existing domain name registrants could register the IDN variants of the existing domain name. Now, this is pretty easy for a TLD with 50.000 registrations and three latin character-based languages. Obviously, that does not scale for millions of registrations in gTLDs and all possible IDN variants. The short answer to Joly's original question is that one should exercise their own judgement as to the relevance to make defensive registrations. If I do not plan to do business in Japan, why should I register the domain name in Japanese script or even care ? And in case of an abusive registration by a third party
[Clicked on Send too early apologie -- patrick ] On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:34:32 +0100, Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu> wrote:
Just imagine what would happen if someone else now registered the properly spelled version, "università.com", which would possibly come out higher in search engine queries for "università", be seen as the "correct" version by the users, and in the end undermine the original website and business.
People would have a reasonable expectation that, once the proper "accented" version becomes available, people having registered the non-accented version would have priority in getting it. (Actually, the original expectation was that a variants system would be developed for accented Latin characters, so to avoid the problem altogether.)
However, no one at ICANN seemed interested in the issue - actually, no one even seemed to understand it. Everyone was just focused on two issues - introduce a bigger market by allowing new domain names, and keeping the governments from non-Latin countries happy.
I concur. We had a advisory committee meeting of the .lu ccTLD some months ago, and one of the issues on the table were IDNs, and how to prevent user confusion. Right now for example, all the public authorities are grouped under the "etat.lu" domain. Citizens expect to find the same web site under "état.lu". If they would find another unrelated web site, that would somehow hurt the trust relationship between the citizen and the state. We finally decided to have a sunrise period where existing domain name registrants could register the IDN variants of the existing domain name. Now, this is pretty easy for a TLD with 50.000 registrations and three latin character-based languages. Obviously, that does not scale for millions of registrations in gTLDs and all possible IDN variants. The short answer to Joly's original question is that one should exercise their own judgement as to the relevance to make defensive registrations. If I do not plan to do business in Japan, why should I register the domain name in Japanese script or even care ? And in case of an abusive registration by a third party there is always the UDRP and other legal actions. Patrick
People would have a reasonable expectation that, once the proper "accented" version becomes available, people having registered the non-accented version would have priority in getting it. (Actually, the original expectation was that a variants system would be developed for accented Latin characters, so to avoid the problem altogether.)
However, no one at ICANN seemed interested in the issue - actually, no one even seemed to understand it.
You might want to take a look at the IDN policy tables at http://www.iana.org/domains/idn-tables/. Domains are encouraged (perhaps required for ICANN contracted TLDs, I haven't looked at the contracts lately) to publish the list of languages and character sets in which they accept registrations, and the rules for each language. Look, for example, at the rules for .BR which specifically say that they will not accept names that differ only in accents. There's information for several European countries, but I am surprised to see nothing from .LU. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
participants (11)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Derek Smythe -
Evan Leibovitch -
Hong Xue -
James Seng -
John R. Levine -
Joly MacFie -
Karl Auerbach -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Vittorio Bertola