IGO names: is this worth war?
Hello everyone, As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare. I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly. The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones. At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here. [ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ] While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations. I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". *There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.* It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on. IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, *on the balance*, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest. The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else. But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc) If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price. There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept. If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price. Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
+1 Evan On 11/1/2016 8:00 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". *There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.* * * It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz <http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, /on the balance/, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1 from me too Yrjö ________________________________ From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Winthrop Yu <w.yu@gmx.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 2:07 PM To: ICANN At-Large list Subject: Re: [At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war? +1 Evan On 11/1/2016 8:00 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> [http://domainincite.com/wp-content/themes/testtheme/images/di-for-facebook.png]<http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-to-icann>
RANT: Governments raise yet another UN threat to ICANN | Domain Incite - Domain Name Industry News, Analysis & Opinion<http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> domainincite.com ICANN's transition away from US government oversight is not even a month old and the same old bullshit power struggles and existential threats appear to be in play as strongly as ever. Governments, via the chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee, last week yet again threatened that they could withdraw from ICANN and seek refuge within the UN's International Telecommunications Union if they don't get what they want from the rest of the community. It's the kind of thing the IANA transition was supposed to minimize, but just weeks later it appears that little has really changed in the rarefied world of ICANN politicking. Thomas Schneider, GAC chair, said this on a conference call between the ICANN board and the Generic Names Supporting Organization on Thursday: I'm just urging you about considering what happens if many governments consider that this system does not work. They go to other institutions. If we are not able to defend public interest in this institution we need to go
that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". *There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.* * * It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz <http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, /on the balance/, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I will be formally joining ALAC at the the end of ICANN57. I will definitely learn more about this critical issue so thoughtfully brought and detailed by Mr. Leibovitz. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Nov 1, 2016, at 8:00 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.
It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, on the balance, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva _______________________________________________ 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...)
I agree 100% with you Evan. Amazingly when I started reading this, I knew somewhere we'd get to the Olympic issue :) When speaking of scammers, some would say this is the responsibility of the courts and law enforcement. In fact this is the very game some registrars play, citing a "US court order" is required while hiding junk registration details behind proxies (proven and much harm was and is being done). It's no coincidence that one such is the leading sponsoring registrar for malicious domains in the advance fee fraud arena currently, while self blinding to proven fraud and harm to victims half way around the world that will never be afforded the luxury of the US courts. Know how many FBI, IRS, IMF, UN etc domains I've seen the past year? It says something about the armchair theories of operation. Of course we can take away the protections of the likes of the Red Cross etc, then get them to jump the hoops. Suddenly we will see the logic of malicious $10 domains vs lawyers costs for URS etc procedures. The system favors the malicious actors and quickly the Red Cross will be spending a lot of their time and money mitigating, while certain registrars, lawyers and malicious actors have a (profitable) field day at the cost of the consumer. Unfortunately we see a lot of tokenism in the system not living up to the spirit of the system. So reading this is no great surprise. Think about what Evan is talking about. I'm asking you to think carefully about what we promised to the consumer 15, 20 years ago. Have we live up to these promises? Derek On 2016-11-01 02:00 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". *There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.* * * It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz <http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, /on the balance/, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Evan,
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board, as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes? Julf [Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have no business connection with the "domain industry"]
Hi, Fair point and while I also do not like the using the "backdoor" idea. I think one of the issue is how much of non-GNSO Council member view can decisive in final outcome production(this would apply to all ACs). Like I said, I don't have details of this particular instance but I can imagine how ironically welcoming some members within GNSO can be towards GAC's views; From the article shared, it seem GAC was part of the process initially but withdrew, will be good to know why that happened. I think as AtLarge, we should be careful not to support what clearly seem not be in the interest of internet end user because GAC didn't go through PDP but used the means it had; Let's not cut the head to cure the headache Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 1 Nov 2016 16:50, "Johan Helsingius" <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Evan,
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board, as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes?
Julf
[Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have no business connection with the "domain industry"]
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Julf, I hear you. This is a classic case of forum shopping. But this ongoing incident takes us to the core of how ICANN is organised in its SOs and ACs. The AoC Review process addresses each SO/AC individually. It then includes an ATRT Review, but is there a process that looks at the overall ICANN structure and whether that kind of structure works? Advisory Committees are able to report their findings and recommendations to the Board. In the past, the Board has had to balance stakeholder input and make a decision. With the Accountability process, some parts of the community have been led to believe that policy that reached consensus in a PDP is unalterable and the Board needs to rubber stamp it. That would make any advisory committee obsolete. Irrespective of the actual discussion topic, we need an ICANN-wide discussion on the place of SOs and ACs. We also need to know whether the balance of stakeholders has been affected by the recent CCWG Accountability recommendations and by-law changes. Putting the blame on such and such a type of stakeholder is, in my opinion, not productive. The restrictions on individual GAC representatives taking part in GNSO PDPs are well known. The underlying politics within the GAC (back in the the member countries of the GAC) are complex. The topic itself has been poisoning the atmosphere for a while. The GAC Chair is raising the sword of Damocles... and whether we like it or not, a negotiation is going to be needed... because governments have nuclear weapons and the private sector and civil society do not. The wild west where we are completely able to decide on our own destiny is a dusty illusion. Kindest regards, Olivier On 01/11/2016 21:20, Johan Helsingius wrote:
Evan,
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here. Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board, as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes?
Julf
[Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have no business connection with the "domain industry"]
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
I doubt that GAC is really saying it will take off to ITU. (What GAC thinks is high level concern may well not coincide with what ITU does and that disparity remains a barrier). But it is showing the prisoner the implements of torture in advance. What this comment (by GAC chair) may well signal is concern that there is a lack of balance between supporting organisations at ICANN. A first amongst equals is becoming over dominant. This if true will inevitably break ICANN capacity and legitimacy to manage governance of high level issues. If the ICANN board also believes it has no independent freedom to seize initiative even to poke its supporting organisations to engage more deeply to restore such balance that can only reinforce high level concerns. So it is as you suggest down to ICANNs communities to prove that it can arbitrate for high level concerns. On that note where is the text of the GAC proposal that has set this hare in motion? Christian Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Julf,
I hear you. This is a classic case of forum shopping.
But this ongoing incident takes us to the core of how ICANN is organised in its SOs and ACs. The AoC Review process addresses each SO/AC individually. It then includes an ATRT Review, but is there a process that looks at the overall ICANN structure and whether that kind of structure works?
Advisory Committees are able to report their findings and recommendations to the Board. In the past, the Board has had to balance stakeholder input and make a decision. With the Accountability process, some parts of the community have been led to believe that policy that reached consensus in a PDP is unalterable and the Board needs to rubber stamp it. That would make any advisory committee obsolete.
Irrespective of the actual discussion topic, we need an ICANN-wide discussion on the place of SOs and ACs. We also need to know whether the balance of stakeholders has been affected by the recent CCWG Accountability recommendations and by-law changes.
Putting the blame on such and such a type of stakeholder is, in my opinion, not productive. The restrictions on individual GAC representatives taking part in GNSO PDPs are well known. The underlying politics within the GAC (back in the the member countries of the GAC) are complex. The topic itself has been poisoning the atmosphere for a while. The GAC Chair is raising the sword of Damocles... and whether we like it or not, a negotiation is going to be needed... because governments have nuclear weapons and the private sector and civil society do not. The wild west where we are completely able to decide on our own destiny is a dusty illusion.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 01/11/2016 21:20, Johan Helsingius wrote:
Evan,
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here. Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board, as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes?
Julf
[Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have no business connection with the "domain industry"]
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Christian de Larrinaga FBCS, CITP, ------------------------- @ FirstHand ------------------------- +44 7989 386778 cdel@firsthand.net -------------------------
Dear Christian, On 02/11/2016 14:48, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
I doubt that GAC is really saying it will take off to ITU. (What GAC thinks is high level concern may well not coincide with what ITU does and that disparity remains a barrier). But it is showing the prisoner the implements of torture in advance.
I should have perhaps completed my sentence: the GAC Chair is raising the Damocles sword... yet this sword is not his. The GAC itself is a vehicle created by ICANN, so it won't leave. GAC membership has grown steadily until now. The concern is that it starts losing members and that these members go to ITU instead. Imagine a boycott of GAC by a number of countries. Imagine a walk-out. Has anyone ever considered this? My point is that you need to keep GAC *members* happy or they'll take their business elsewhere. During the IANA Stewardship transition we have heard enough times that ICANN is a private sector led organisation. In business terms, it means, keep your customers happy or they'll leave. And that's only part of the equation: first they'll leave and then they'll kill business by imposing licensing at national level.Some people reading this might be saying "good! that will teach them!" but I think that national licensing of the domain name industry will be the beginning of the end for innovation on the Internet. Kindest regards, Olivier
Ok I'll speak the unspeakable: The problem with the threat to go to the ITU is they well know they as individuals would not likely go with that move. They'd all be replaced by ITU functionaries in a Turtle Bay, NY minute. That would be a Pyrrhic victory. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Olivier is exactly right Allegations of subversion of process are *absolute bullshit*. The process is working *exactly* as ICANN's bylaws demand; - The GNSO has created policy in the interest of domain buyers and sellers. - Meanwhile, the GAC is doing just what the bylaws tell it to do ... advise ICANN. It has no defined decision-making role in the policy development process, and its advice -- like that of any AC -- may be ignored, usually without consequence. But not this time. What has got the GNSO in its current whinging fit is the "or else" threatened if ICANN blows off the GAC advice on IGOs ... in the way it has customarily blown off previous AC advice that counters the GNSO's will. To this, my reaction is less "how could this happen" but rather "this was inevitable, I'm amazed it didn't happen sooner". Welcome, finally, to the consequences of ICANN's deliberate separation of stakeholders into different classes; those who must be heeded (the GNSO) and those who only give advice and may be casually blown off (the ACs). ICANN must now deal with this unequal, unfair structure of its own design. I welcome the discussion Olivier calls for, that recognizes and elevates the interests of those who neither buy nor sell domains, yet are profoundly impacted by ICANN policy. Until then .... the onus, should it wish to avoid a conflict, is on the GNSO to accommodate the AC, not vice versa. Preferably there is a negotiated middle ground -- in a meeting of equals, not an invitation as a guest to an already-slanted working group. I have seen my share of GNSO WGs where the invited advisory council reps were factored out of the final consensus because the output was, after all, subject to GNSO ratification and nobody else's. Indeed, I was part of a 2012 working group that considered IOC and ICRC requests and, eventually, blew them off. So they DID try the bottom-up process and it failed because the GNSO overpowered the complainants. What we see now is the payback for that. I've also been happy to see that CCWGs are working well. Maybe that is the answer. "We invited them to our process that only we need to ratify" is likely insufficient inclusion. Perhaps the discussions Olivier asks for will result in CCWGs being the default bylaw-mandated structure for PDPs. But enough about process.... Lest we get distracted by process as ICANN does so often and so well, let's also remember the substance of the issue. Multiple people on this thread have complained "why should we afford protection to the XXX if we don't give it to someone else deserving?" or "why should ICANN give protection to XXX that it doesn't get elsewhere?" Such arguments are so commonplace within ICANN that I consider them to be corporate culture, the standard retort to anything that suggests change to the status quo. Their logic can be compressed into: *If you can't fix everything, don't fix anything.* I reject that argument, deliberately advanced to stifle improvement and innovation while enabling past errors to remain errors in perpetuity. The issue in front of us -- should ALAC advise on the matter -- is not about the value of MSF or trademark protections of IGOs. We are constrained to deal with protection of IGO strings within gTLDs. Inside that narrow regard there is a public interest in which, IMO, we should engage. At very least, I cannot understand why anyone considering the public interest would oppose reserving ICRC strings; that body that is explicitly mentioned in the most fundamental of international humanitarian treaties. Its names and symbols are most certainly abused regularly. In the case of Alan's favourite example.... the International Organization for Standardization has members from 163 countries, that produces information critical for interoperability in thousands of fields. Its protection is not quite as critical as the ICRC (and UNICEF, UNHCR, etc) because it does not solicit public funds. However the public information it produces is not just useful but required to be complete and accurate by both the private and public sectors. So on the balance I would support its protection. As a matter of general criteria I would want to protect any IGO that either solicits public funds or has a significant public-information role. If ICANN wishes an internal body to identify criteria for organizations whose strings are in need of public-interest protection, At-Large is actually the appropriate place to advise on that. But if brinkmanship between the GAC and GNSO demands a binary answer from ALAC, the massive public benefit of protecting the ICRC and other fundraising IGOs overrides the domain industry's entitlement to commoditize IGO strings. The more obscure IGOs don't require protection, but reserving their strings is harmless from a public-interest point of view should we be faced with an all-or-nothing choice. - Evan
On 02-11-16 10:43, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Allegations of subversion of process are *absolute bullshit*. The process is working _exactly_ as ICANN's bylaws demand;
- The GNSO has created policy in the interest of domain buyers and sellers.
No, the GNSO has created a policy, after a long-drawn-out multistakeholder PGP process. The GNSO is not just an interest group of domain buyers and sellers - half of GNSO represents non-contracting parties - so "the rest of us".
- Meanwhile, the GAC is doing just what the bylaws tell it to do ... advise ICANN.
That, plus create a secret "small team" of Board members, GAC representatives and people from the IGO's.
What has got the GNSO in its current whinging fit is the "or else" threatened if ICANN blows off the GAC advice on IGOs ... in the way it has customarily blown off previous AC advice that counters the GNSO's will.
I have to disagree. The issue GNSO has is that it has repeatedly pointed out that there is a conflict between policy as determined by the proper policy processes and GAC advice, and the only ones who can decide is the board - but the board keeps punting on that decision.
Welcome, finally, to the consequences of ICANN's deliberate separation of stakeholders into different classes; those who must be heeded (the GNSO) and those who only give advice and may be casually blown off (the ACs). ICANN must now deal with this unequal, unfair structure of its own design.
There is a reason ACs have "advisory" in their name. In my dictionary "binding advice" is a contradiction of terms. If you want to affect policy, join the appropriate policy-setting organisation. In the case of global top-level names it is GNSO - and anyone can join one of the GNSO constituencies (and in addition, the GNSO council also has independent council members such as me appointed by the Nomcom from outside the strict constituency structure).
I welcome the discussion Olivier calls for, that recognizes and elevates the interests of those who neither buy nor sell domains, yet are profoundly impacted by ICANN policy.
And you feel that is not covered by the commercial (non-registry/registrar) stakeholder group, or the non-commercial stakeholder group?
Preferably there is a negotiated middle ground -- in a meeting of equals, not an invitation as a guest to an already-slanted working group.
The GAC was invited not as a "guest" but full-fledged member. Julf
Olivier echos exactly my point! (re: GAC only seem to have used the "more reliable" means available to them). Regards On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Julf,
I hear you. This is a classic case of forum shopping.
But this ongoing incident takes us to the core of how ICANN is organised in its SOs and ACs. The AoC Review process addresses each SO/AC individually. It then includes an ATRT Review, but is there a process that looks at the overall ICANN structure and whether that kind of structure works?
Advisory Committees are able to report their findings and recommendations to the Board. In the past, the Board has had to balance stakeholder input and make a decision. With the Accountability process, some parts of the community have been led to believe that policy that reached consensus in a PDP is unalterable and the Board needs to rubber stamp it. That would make any advisory committee obsolete.
Irrespective of the actual discussion topic, we need an ICANN-wide discussion on the place of SOs and ACs. We also need to know whether the balance of stakeholders has been affected by the recent CCWG Accountability recommendations and by-law changes.
Putting the blame on such and such a type of stakeholder is, in my opinion, not productive. The restrictions on individual GAC representatives taking part in GNSO PDPs are well known. The underlying politics within the GAC (back in the the member countries of the GAC) are complex. The topic itself has been poisoning the atmosphere for a while. The GAC Chair is raising the sword of Damocles... and whether we like it or not, a negotiation is going to be needed... because governments have nuclear weapons and the private sector and civil society do not. The wild west where we are completely able to decide on our own destiny is a dusty illusion.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 01/11/2016 21:20, Johan Helsingius wrote:
Evan,
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here. Unfortunately, as so often with ICANN, the battle is not about the actual IGO name issue, but about the proper process to determine it. What this really is about is the way the organisations refused to participate in the proper GNSO process (despite being invited to), but instead going to GAC and the ICANN board, as they thought that would be an easier way to get what they wanted. Do we want to encourage using government power as a leverage to bypass multistakeholder community processes?
Julf
[Disclosure: I sit on the GNSO council, appointed by the NomCom. I have no business connection with the "domain industry"]
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On 02-11-16 08:54, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
The GAC Chair is raising the sword of Damocles... and whether we like it or not, a negotiation is going to be needed... because governments have nuclear weapons and the private sector and civil society do not.
Ah, yes, gunboat diplomacy. :) Reminds me of the argument about why US English spelling is correct and British English is wrong: "there's 300 million of us and we are heavily armed". Julf
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
This should not be a difficult call. The ALAC is supposed to represent the interests of Internet users. It would be bad if users were confused by a TLD that looked like an international organization but was in fact run by a domain speculator. Users do not care, and we on their behalf do not care, if a reserved name interferes with some speculator's business plan. In view of the ongoing failure of the new gTLD round to attract meaningful interest beyond speculators and criminals, any claim that yet more new TLDs will benefit users is implausible. So if they have a list of reserved TLD names, reserve them all. From the point of view of the users, it is at worst harmless. By the way, I looked at the proposed ITU resolution and I didn't see anything about reserving second level names. In any event, it's a bit late to do that retroactively on the handful of TLDs that matter. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
At 01/11/2016 12:26 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
This should not be a difficult call. The ALAC is supposed to represent the interests of Internet users. It would be bad if users were confused by a TLD that looked like an international organization but was in fact run by a domain speculator. Users do not care, and we on their behalf do not care, if a reserved name interferes with some speculator's business plan. In view of the ongoing failure of the new gTLD round to attract meaningful interest beyond speculators and criminals, any claim that yet more new TLDs will benefit users is implausible.
So if they have a list of reserved TLD names, reserve them all. From the point of view of the users, it is at worst harmless.
It is clear (to me anyway) that John is right and if it is a binary decision of supporting all acronyms or not, we support. But ALAC also has a responsibility to monitor how ICANN works and try to make sure that our processes do not impede making good decisions. And in this case, we have a level of dysfuntion that may result in ICANN not being able to make the simple binary decision. And that dysfuntion is partly because the GAC has been over-reaching in what they are asking. My classic case is that according to their request, the acronym ISO has nothing to do with standards but rather the International Sugar Organization. The other problem is that at the moment, it is not a question of the ALAC supporting this decision to reserve IGO acronyms. It is a question how we GET to that point given that the GNSO is unlikely to recommend to the Board to do this. Alan
The article you mention provides a lot of context on the IGO issue. It brings me to ask 2 questions. Why should govts be afforded protections by the ICANN community that they do not enjoy in any other area, to the point that they do not even ask for these protections from the ccTLDs they themselves oversee? Considering that the GAC seems to have voluntarily bypassed the bottom-up, policy development process, should ALAC come out in support of this circumvention? What would that risk doing to the way ALAC is seen by the rest of the community? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 1 nov. 2016 à 13:00, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org <mailto:evan@telly.org>> a écrit :
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.
It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz <http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz/>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, on the balance, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The article you mention provides a lot of context on the IGO issue. It brings me to ask 2 questions. Why should govts be afforded protections by the ICANN community that they do not enjoy in any other area, to the point that they do not even ask for these protections from the ccTLDs they themselves oversee? Considering that the GAC seems to have voluntarily bypassed the bottom-up, policy development process, should ALAC come out in support of this circumvention? What would that risk doing to the way ALAC is seen by the rest of the community? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder
Le 1 nov. 2016 à 13:00, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.
It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz <http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz/>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, on the balance, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
To a great extent this is the result of years of, I'm trying to think of a softer word, corruption (in a generic sense), within the DNS policy process. Why have TLDs at all? To present some sort of taxonomy to the user. By user I mean both the purchasers of a domain and the general public. For example one tends to believe that a domain ending in .GOV is a US Govt agency (and even that usage raise objections.) But at some early point for example .ORG, which was supposed to be for non-profits or non-commercial entities, and .NET which was again supposed to be for network operations entities or similar, were just opened up to anyone and anything. With a very few exceptions or minor counter-examples this became the standard operating model. You get approved as a registry and spin up registrars for .HOTEL or whatever and you go to town selling them. Could be porn sites with catchy names, I'll spare you any speculations, or personal blogs about insecticides (ROACH.HOTEL!), whatever. Because to suggest anything else was, and I've sat in those meetings and hallway discussions, to say "we are taking away your revenue sources" and that was just a horrible injustice. So why have new TLDs at all? Other than to create products to sell. One reasoning pushed was because with so few TLDs the name space was crowded and not accommodating the fast-growing population of legitimate businesses who wanted a domain which reflected their brand. And of course the appearance of a taxonomy, a user could know that RACING.BICYCLES might actually lead to some site interested in racing bicycles. Sounds very reasonable. So for example if you were "Independent Bicycle Manufacturers" you knew you would never have IBM.COM or even IBM.{ORG,NET,INFO,BIZ}, they'd all been bought many years ago. But perhaps you could have IBM.BICYCLES? And why not? That's how international trademark law works. A mark is generally only defensible within a product or service area (I know, more complicated, but in a phrase) and assuming that big computer company doesn't sell bicycles the problem is, if not 100% solved (legitimate conflicts are still possible), mitigated. But at some point the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) was invented so anyone with a properly registered trademark in any product or service area would get certain powerful rights in any new gTLD which could be summed up as an exclusive right of first refusal. So the computer company gets first shot at IBM.BICYCLES particularly if the bicycle manufacturing group never registered "IBM", perhaps can't meet the TMCH registration requirements even though they may have legitimate rights in the mark as pertains to bicycles. Further, if this bicycle group does manage to get IBM.BICYCLES they would have to acknowledge at registration that they are aware that this string ("IBM") is registered in the TMCH to the computer company and the computer company gets an immediate warning from TMCH that someone just registered a domain with their string. They may feel this is not a propitious start and understandably so. Which raises one question as to why these IGOs didn't just go the TMCH route and snatch up WHO.BICYCLES etc as each went into what's called their "sunrise" period when only those with proper TMCH registration can purchase a domain in that TLD? Too expensive for them perhaps? Ok, then we're just arguing about the price not the principle. The yearly TMCH registration fee is US$150 and sunrise registrations with a few notable exceptions are around US$100-US$200 each. I suppose they would argue that 1,000+ such registrations does get expensive but this is circular: Only if one accepts they must have rights in WHO.BICYCLE or WHO.HOTEL. Or maybe there is a principle involved? Why, for example, should a valid IGO be bothered with all that minutiae when their "rights" in the string should be self-evident. Clearly they are more important than multi-national corporations or tens of thousands of other civil society organizations worldwide. I don't mean to pick on IGOs. They may well have legitimate grievances and needs in regards to this issue. But what is the overarching rule in question here? Merely that squeaky wheels get all the grease? The point of this whole exercise has been to show where this abandoment of any claim of taxonomy, or any cogent principles at all really, have led. New gTLDs were opened soas to provide an opportunity for legitimate brand holders and others who wouldn't normally conflict under int'l trademark law to obtain a meaningful domain. And then slammed back shut in cases they would likely apply via TMCH and in particular threats of URS -- an ICANN process for a brand holder to shut down and usually obtain a domain (if successful) which they believe infringes on their mark. Whether or not that claim has ever been examined through the eyes of actual trademark law other than in passing, generally not. Don't get me wrong. I am not criticizing TMCH per se. They serve a useful function and in my experience do it well. My criticism is that it's a result of trying to patch up some rather broken, or perhaps put better non-existent, policies. Since almost all TLDs are meaningless anyhow except in the eye of the beholder and don't claim to, for example, reflect WIPO or USPTO trademark categories even in principle, not in the slightest, then where else could this all go? As I said there are a handful of exceptions. For example .MUSEUM was introduced in 2001, long before this current new TLD program, and seems to successfully limit registrations to actual museums by some reasonable-looking criteria. And .COOP released in the same year (2001) exclusively for cooperatives. There are also several in the new GTLD round though only time will tell if these promises will be adhered to. Ok, so almost no one has ever heard of .MUSEUM or .COOP. even as they enter their 17th year of service. They are nonetheless valid counter-examples! What does all this say about these current fulminations? That given a poorly designed system based on almost no principles it's not surprising that simple questions such as what rights do IGOs have in their marks (e.g., in .BICYCLES) become gut-wrenching exercises yielding existential threats of mutiny to even be heard. This is how chaos looks in its full realization. P.S. Any marks or TLDs mentioned above are purely illustrative. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Hi all. (I anticipate that this message will not reach the ALAC internal list, as I am not a member of it) Personally, I believe that this whole story has very little, if anything at all, to do with “public interest” but is all about having one stakeholder of the global equal multi-stakeholder model being more equal than the others, if I may paraphrase George Orwell. If we see the matter under this point of view, it seems obvious to me that it is in the best interest of all other stakeholders, including us, to reject this approach. It would be also in the best interest of ICANN as an umbrella organization not to jeopardize its own governance model, but for them to provide this answer in absence of the reaction of the stakeholder community would be extremely complicated. So much for the form. About the substance, the claim is made that the protection is needed to avoid scam on fundraising using IGO names. However, the same claim can be made by most, if not all, NGOs, because their funding mechanism is based on fundraising from the public, unlike most, if not all, IGOs whose funding comes from governments. Rightfully so, Evan quotes an example that involves the Red Cross: I seriously doubt that some scammer will ever use, for instance, the name of my former employer, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a scam – so why protect that and not, for instance, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). Personally, I am against special preventive protection (some of you might remember that I was against the special protection also for the Red Cross and the IOC) but I might possibly be convinced to accept a compromise based on preventing scams in fundraising only in the case of a very specific list of organizations that includes qualifying IGOs (although I believe there are none who do fundraising via calls to the public) and also relevant NGOs. In other words, the barn is open since the decision of granting special rights to a couple of organizations, and now we need to deal with the consequences of that (to me wrong) decision. I appreciate that Evan makes a similar distinction in his post that I am replying to, so we are not in complete disagreement, but unfortunately the proposal of the “small group” that is today on the table has no mention of NGOs, but only of IGOs, and that makes it completely unacceptable. I believe that there will be a public discussion in Hyderabad on this matter next Monday. Best regards, Roberto Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2016 17:31 A: ICANN ALAC list; ICANN At-Large list Oggetto: [At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war? Hello everyone, As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare. I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly. The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite<http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones. At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here. [ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ] While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations. I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising. It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz<http://redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz>" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on. IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, on the balance, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest. The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else. But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc) If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price. There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept. If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price. Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
I think you hit on a very important point, Roberto. Does this lead to a general proposal or do we just go one by one through each group of IGOs, NGOs, various charities, not-for-profits, civil society groups, sports teams? who can find their way to ICANN? When you analyze this it's anyone with a recognizable mark. This is really just a special case of intellectual property protection. For example I was once many years ago threatened by Pfizer because I had registered (when the product was first released) some names like viagra-lawsuit.com thinking maybe it could be an information clearinghouse of some sort (there weren't many lawsuits, bad guess!) We seem to have won in the lawyer to lawyer arguments, first amendment rights, basically a news function, like using the string 'viagra' in a newspaper headline. Hard to tell as they just disappeared after several back and forth letters. But how is this current kerfuffle different from Pfizer (just an example) asking to reserve any SLD containing the string 'viagra' or any other TM product? They probably have thousands. And they can even throw in the compelling argument of fraudulent drug sales, protecting the public, etc. I don't question Pfizer et al's right to defend their marks legitimately. It's the question of whether or not there should be a general prior restraint policy? Or do we evaluate these on a case by case basis? And even if we do that then using what principles? Just perceived political leverage? It would seem to come down to the mommy rule: If I give you one then I have to give one to everyone! On November 2, 2016 at 02:18 roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com (Roberto Gaetano) wrote:
Hi all.
(I anticipate that this message will not reach the ALAC internal list, as I am not a member of it)
Personally, I believe that this whole story has very little, if anything at all, to do with “public interest” but is all about having one stakeholder of the global equal multi-stakeholder model being more equal than the others, if I may paraphrase George Orwell.
If we see the matter under this point of view, it seems obvious to me that it is in the best interest of all other stakeholders, including us, to reject this approach. It would be also in the best interest of ICANN as an umbrella organization not to jeopardize its own governance model, but for them to provide this answer in absence of the reaction of the stakeholder community would be extremely complicated.
So much for the form.
About the substance, the claim is made that the protection is needed to avoid scam on fundraising using IGO names.
However, the same claim can be made by most, if not all, NGOs, because their funding mechanism is based on fundraising from the public, unlike most, if not all, IGOs whose funding comes from governments.
Rightfully so, Evan quotes an example that involves the Red Cross: I seriously doubt that some scammer will ever use, for instance, the name of my former employer, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for a scam – so why protect that and not, for instance, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).
Personally, I am against special preventive protection (some of you might remember that I was against the special protection also for the Red Cross and the IOC) but I might possibly be convinced to accept a compromise based on preventing scams in fundraising only in the case of a very specific list of organizations that includes qualifying IGOs (although I believe there are none who do fundraising via calls to the public) and also relevant NGOs. In other words, the barn is open since the decision of granting special rights to a couple of organizations, and now we need to deal with the consequences of that (to me wrong) decision.
I appreciate that Evan makes a similar distinction in his post that I am replying to, so we are not in complete disagreement, but unfortunately the proposal of the “small group” that is today on the table has no mention of NGOs, but only of IGOs, and that makes it completely unacceptable.
I believe that there will be a public discussion in Hyderabad on this matter next Monday.
Best regards,
Roberto
Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: martedì 1 novembre 2016 17:31 A: ICANN ALAC list; ICANN At-Large list Oggetto: [At-Large] IGO names: is this worth war?
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.
It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, on the balance, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you.
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto / Geneva
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Barry,
When you analyze this it's anyone with a recognizable mark. This is really just a special case of intellectual property protection.
That is exactly the position of GNSO - there are already protection mechanisms in place for intellectual property protection in the procedures. Somehow some IGO's just seem to want to be special. Julf
That is exactly the position of GNSO - there are already protection mechanisms in place for intellectual property protection in the procedures. Somehow some IGO's just seem to want to be special.
Unless I've missed something, the TMCH et al are for trademarks. IGO names typically aren't trademarks. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
On November 2, 2016 at 21:58 johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
That is exactly the position of GNSO - there are already protection mechanisms in place for intellectual property protection in the procedures. Somehow some IGO's just seem to want to be special.
Unless I've missed something, the TMCH et al are for trademarks. IGO names typically aren't trademarks.
Under US law, and no doubt others', IGO names would be trademarks, they just might not be registered trademarks. The difference is not that great (we could quibble "great".) You can't seek certain reliefs (under US law, again probably others) for unregistered trademarks but you certainly can stop someone from using your mark in a "confusingly similar manner" and even pursue damages. There's more to that of course, there are thousands of pages of case law etc detailing the differences. But that's the usual 2 cent summary. One always has to go back to the base principle that the ultimate purpose of trademark law is to protect consumers, not to create intellectual landfill. So if you buy a bottle labeled Coca-Cola you have some reasonable confidence it was the product (direct or by their approval) of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company. N.B. By this reasoning domains as commonly defended are a bizarre aberration of trademark tradition. But that's a different discussion. I have no idea why IGOs wouldn't register their marks but perhaps there is some reasoning. That said TMCH is certainly weighted towards registered trademarks (WIPO, USPTO, etc) though if you read their rules thoroughly there are other validations of a mark possible. But one possible proposal, assuming this power exists under the contract, is to tell TMCH here's a list of marks along with other identifying information which we want you to treat as registered in the TMCH. I'm not sure that will be satisfactory. Obviously one would have to ask the IGOs et al of course. For example all that TMCH entry gives you is access to sunrise registration and, failing the exercise of that, notification when someone registers an exact match such as WHO.BICYCLES. And if registered under sunrise the organization would still have to pay sunrise registration fees (as stands) which vary from around US$200 to US$2500 or more in a few cases. Most are closer to the low number in price. But even at US$200 per each 1,000 of them would be US$200,000 in sunrise registration fees, per string. Yearly renewals would generally be somewhat lower. And a warning to and sign-off from whoever else registers WHO.BICYCLES if it's not registered by the TMCH entrant. The registrant will get a notice when they try to register a mark which is an exact string match in the TMCH database. Notice that as it works now that will not give WHO (just an example) anything regarding strings like WHO-UN.BICYCLES or even WORLDHEALTHORGANIZATION.BICYCLES unless they are each separately put into the TMCH database. There's no accommodation for a regular expression or other similarity test and to my knowledge TMCH has no process if you find a registration you feel is confusingly similar but not an exact string match. That would be outside of their purview. The recommended pursuit of relief would be to file a URS complaint (for nGTLDs) and/or seek redress via a court of competent jurisdiction. As I said earlier, the devil is in those details. And only the IGOs making these requests can really address those issues.
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
So... to industry, the domains of the Red Cross and its affiliates are merely a special form of trademark, just like Coca-Cola.
From a public interest PoV, I posit that they are vastly different. Coca-Cola does not have a business model of soliciting charitable donations, in every country, for distribution in other countries. It is not depended upon for relief activity or critical medical-related public information. It is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a foundation of global humanitarian activity. Similar things can be said about a number of other international agencies (ie, UNICEF, WFP etc), though maybe not quite at that level.
If ICANN's "community" wishes to maintain oblivion to the distinction between the ICRC and Coca-Cola, that is its right. But that should not stop those representing the public interest at ICANN -- governments and At-Large -- from asserting the distinction, and using whatever bylaw-allowed tools are at their disposal to encourage ICANN to balance industry needs with those of the non-domain-buying public. If the processes created by ICANN's compact of domain buyers and domain sellers -- the GNSO -- cannot accommodate that distinction, then the problem is in the process and not in the fact that a distinction exists. If the response is that there are indeed specific IGOs -- that face the public directly and who trade in international public trust -- that deserve protection but that not all IGOs do, that is a reasonable response and IMO a foundation for compromise. I would be happy to participate in a group that created objective distinction criteria and/or identified the IGOs worthy of global protection. I don't think that more than a dozen or so IGOs meet this public trust criteria, but those that do are indeed worthy of special treatment. But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals). - Evan PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse.
Evan,
But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals).
Not sure "there is a proper process for this, and we would really like you to participate in it rather than try to bypass it" qualifies as a blanket blow-off or open hostility.
PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse.
Good point. Julf
On 3 November 2016 at 11:06, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Not sure "there is a proper process for this, and we would really like you to participate in it rather than try to bypass it" qualifies as a blanket blow-off or open hostility.
They fully participated in the process once, and it failed them. I was part of a WG a few years ago that was examining requests from the Olympics and Red Cross. After months and months and thousands of person hours, the result was an impasse. No resolution, no appreciation of the nuance why some IGOs might warrant protection based on public trust (ICRC) but some might not (IOC). As a result, the lengthy process resulted in no protection for even the Red Cross, IMO a defeat for the public interst ... and, I imagine, no confidence among other IGOs of any better result if the same process (essentially unchanged since then) played out again today. IOW, once upon a time, they played the game exactly as requested ... and got blown off. So I understand the unwillingness to repeat on the same terms. - Evan
I am in favor to have such names of International, recognized by UN, but it needs to be quite clear – role, recognition of the work etc , or all NGO in the world would like to have similar privilege and this will be impossible. I would like to not have those well-known organization to be ignored, if we do not have a quite clear selection of which organization will be in this “privileged list”. Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. [cid:image001.png@01D235F2.3E786100] From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM To: "bzs@TheWorld.com" <bzs@theworld.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war? So... to industry, the domains of the Red Cross and its affiliates are merely a special form of trademark, just like Coca-Cola. From a public interest PoV, I posit that they are vastly different. Coca-Cola does not have a business model of soliciting charitable donations, in every country, for distribution in other countries. It is not depended upon for relief activity or critical medical-related public information. It is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a foundation of global humanitarian activity. Similar things can be said about a number of other international agencies (ie, UNICEF, WFP etc), though maybe not quite at that level. If ICANN's "community" wishes to maintain oblivion to the distinction between the ICRC and Coca-Cola, that is its right. But that should not stop those representing the public interest at ICANN -- governments and At-Large -- from asserting the distinction, and using whatever bylaw-allowed tools are at their disposal to encourage ICANN to balance industry needs with those of the non-domain-buying public. If the processes created by ICANN's compact of domain buyers and domain sellers -- the GNSO -- cannot accommodate that distinction, then the problem is in the process and not in the fact that a distinction exists. If the response is that there are indeed specific IGOs -- that face the public directly and who trade in international public trust -- that deserve protection but that not all IGOs do, that is a reasonable response and IMO a foundation for compromise. I would be happy to participate in a group that created objective distinction criteria and/or identified the IGOs worthy of global protection. I don't think that more than a dozen or so IGOs meet this public trust criteria, but those that do are indeed worthy of special treatment. But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals). - Evan PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse.
Aware that I am not formally an ALAC member yet, I announce that I generally side with Evan's points on this issue. I wonder though if it's at all helpful to limit any future protection to IGO's that are truly "public" in the Public International Law sense (e.g. treaty based organizations or agencies of such organizations) and/or that carry out high public interest duties spelled out in treaties or conventions (Red Cross/Red Crescent), as opposed to entities such as the IOC, or FIFA for that matter, which might or might not enjoy a level of international personhood under International Law, and which might or might not carry out duties which are commendable and in the International and national public interest, but which in many ways can be described as corporate entities. Have these juridical distinctions been discussed before? Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Nov 3, 2016, at 7:19 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
I am in favor to have such names of International, recognized by UN, but it needs to be quite clear – role, recognition of the work etc , or all NGO in the world would like to have similar privilege and this will be impossible. I would like to not have those well-known organization to be ignored, if we do not have a quite clear selection of which organization will be in this “privileged list”. Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. <image001.png>
From: <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 3:20 PM To: "bzs@TheWorld.com" <bzs@theworld.com> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] R: IGO names: is this worth war?
So... to industry, the domains of the Red Cross and its affiliates are merely a special form of trademark, just like Coca-Cola.
From a public interest PoV, I posit that they are vastly different. Coca-Cola does not have a business model of soliciting charitable donations, in every country, for distribution in other countries. It is not depended upon for relief activity or critical medical-related public information. It is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a foundation of global humanitarian activity. Similar things can be said about a number of other international agencies (ie, UNICEF, WFP etc), though maybe not quite at that level.
If ICANN's "community" wishes to maintain oblivion to the distinction between the ICRC and Coca-Cola, that is its right. But that should not stop those representing the public interest at ICANN -- governments and At-Large -- from asserting the distinction, and using whatever bylaw-allowed tools are at their disposal to encourage ICANN to balance industry needs with those of the non-domain-buying public. If the processes created by ICANN's compact of domain buyers and domain sellers -- the GNSO -- cannot accommodate that distinction, then the problem is in the process and not in the fact that a distinction exists.
If the response is that there are indeed specific IGOs -- that face the public directly and who trade in international public trust -- that deserve protection but that not all IGOs do, that is a reasonable response and IMO a foundation for compromise. I would be happy to participate in a group that created objective distinction criteria and/or identified the IGOs worthy of global protection. I don't think that more than a dozen or so IGOs meet this public trust criteria, but those that do are indeed worthy of special treatment.
But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals).
- Evan
PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 03-11-16 12:19, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I am in favor to have such names of International, recognized by UN, but it needs to be quite clear – role, recognition of the work etc , or all NGO in the world would like to have similar privilege and this will be impossible.
I don't think any of us have any real issue with this as such. This whole "war" is not about whether we want protections for the names of those organisations or not, but how to go about achieving it. There is an official process for it in ICANN - the GNSO PDP. Some people/ organisations/governments seem to want to use their position to circumvent or shortcut that process, but what they forget is that ICANN, and the relation between ICANN and registrars and registries is based on formal agreements about Consensus Policies. What GAC needs to understand is that no matter how much they stomp their feet and threaten to throw their toys out of the pram, only GNSO PDPs followed to the letter of GNSO Operating Procedures have binding effect. Julf
On 4 November 2016 at 18:31, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
There is an official process for it in ICANN - the GNSO PDP.
That is a signfiicant part of the problem. It is a process designed by the GNSO for the exclusive benefit if its own stakeholder groups, without consideration that other participants may need different modalities for decision-making. As such, this has a designed-in process in which there are two classes of participants -- the GNSO, and the invited guests who sit at the back of the room. The results of such PDPs must be ratified only by the GNSO, and at that stage the other parties have no voice. As I said, I have already participated in GNSO processes where the At-Large requests (which were deemed reasonable in the WG) were dispensed with at the time of ratification and there was nothing we could do about it. You may be very proud of the process, but it is utterly hostile to those outside the GNSO bubble. As such, don't be surprised if outsiders -- especially those who have already tried to work with it and found their viewpoints at best rejected and at worst belittled -- seek other paths. There has been significant and beneficial progress in the evolution of CCWGs. But until that becomes the default decision-making process, those outside the GNSO will always find the PDP structure unwelcome and of limited value. - Evan
The problem in this discusssion is there is no meeting of the minds on what the problem really is. "The GAC would like better IP protections for IGO names in the DNS space" is not a problem definition. It's too vague. Perhaps they were more specific. All the various descriptions of the problems in getting a problem addressed are not problem definitions. The problems caused by insufficient IP protection is useful as it helps motivate the reason to think about this at all, but it's not a problem definition, only a bad result of lack of a solution. IP protection in the general case is known to be a very difficult problem due to the very reasonable "confusingly similar" aspect. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 5 November 2016 at 02:47, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
The problem in this discusssion is there is no meeting of the minds on what the problem really is.
I argree fully. But the current process forces everything to fit into the GNSO's assumptions and worldview. This forces outsider to either bend their message/request to fit with that worldview (in which case the resolution is also unsatisfactory) or dispense with the process altogether (which is at the core of the current "why won't _they_ participate in _our_ process" whinging). The current design of the PDP is inherently biased against participants that are not GNSO stakeholder groups. Until this is addressed I anticipate an increase in the number (and intensity) of disputes that can't be addressed by ICANN processes in a manner suitable to all parties. This will inevitably lead to more circumvention attempts, which threatens stability. - Evan
Just a question: Has the IPCC (GNSO) weighed in on this GAC/IGO/etc question? -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Evan,
But the current process forces everything to fit into the GNSO's assumptions and worldview.
Of course it does - because that is why the GNSO exists in the first place. The GNSO is not some "power block" or lobbying organisation for the domain industry. The GNSO exists purely as *the* mechanism for formulating gTLD policy. And unlike the GAC or even ALAC, anyone can participate in the GNSO process, either through the many constituency groups (remember that the "domain industry" is only represented in two of the four constituent groups and seven constituencies), or even directly through the nomcom process.
This forces outsider to either bend their message/request to fit with that worldview
It forces the outsider to fit into the ICANN PDP process, yes. And that is what the GNSO position is all about - it is not whether the name of a particular organisation deserves protection or not, but whether the GAC/"small group" recommendation is compatible with existing PDP processes, and if not, how it can be resolved.
The current design of the PDP is inherently biased against participants that are not GNSO stakeholder groups.
What specific participants are, in your view, not catered for in the GNSO stakeholder group model? Julf
Evan,
You may be very proud of the process, but it is utterly hostile to those outside the GNSO bubble.
It is perhaps good to remember that that "bubble" exists for one simple purpose - to "fashion (and over time, recommend changes to) policies for generic Top-Level Domains". That is why they are there. Julf
On November 3, 2016 at 10:50 evan@telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) wrote:
So... to industry, the domains of the Red Cross and its affiliates are merely a special form of trademark, just like Coca-Cola.
I only mentioned Coca-Cola to point out that at its base the issue of trademark protection is consumer protection whether you are buying a soft drink or donating to a charity. The mechanism used on the web are higher-level SSL certificates on web sites which, before being issued, verify they are being purchased by the organization being represented via business listing agencies and other documentation. Unfortunately they haven't been very effective because people don't tend to give much thought to, typically, a lack of certificate if they are directed to a non-SSL URL. And lower-level certificates w/o verification appear to be secure to the site visitor, they just don't get a green bar or whatever it is. I haven't seen any solution to that problem. "Education" feels like a futile hand wave.
From a public interest PoV, I posit that they are vastly different. Coca-Cola does not have a business model of soliciting charitable donations, in every country, for distribution in other countries. It is not depended upon for relief activity or critical medical-related public information. It is not recognized by the Geneva Conventions as a foundation of global humanitarian activity. Similar things can be said about a number of other international agencies (ie, UNICEF, WFP etc), though maybe not quite at that level.
If ICANN's "community" wishes to maintain oblivion to the distinction between the ICRC and Coca-Cola, that is its right. But that should not stop those representing the public interest at ICANN -- governments and At-Large -- from asserting the distinction, and using whatever bylaw-allowed tools are at their disposal to encourage ICANN to balance industry needs with those of the non-domain-buying public. If the processes created by ICANN's compact of domain buyers and domain sellers -- the GNSO -- cannot accommodate that distinction, then the problem is in the process and not in the fact that a distinction exists.
If the response is that there are indeed specific IGOs -- that face the public directly and who trade in international public trust -- that deserve protection but that not all IGOs do, that is a reasonable response and IMO a foundation for compromise. I would be happy to participate in a group that created objective distinction criteria and/or identified the IGOs worthy of global protection. I don't think that more than a dozen or so IGOs meet this public trust criteria, but those that do are indeed worthy of special treatment.
But a blanket blow-off of the request to protect at least some IGOs is a recipe for a needless showdown. The result of such open hostility will simply validate, and indeed expand, negative public perception of ICANN and plant the seeds for more Ted Cruz-like attack (which will play right into the hands of the multllaterals).
- Evan
PS: I am surprised why nobody here has mentioned the "int" TLD, and suggested as a partial solution the use and widespread promotion of it as a natural and trusted home for IGOs. ICANN's support of such a promotional campaign would actually increase its own public trust for it would be seen to recognize and address a real problem of abuse.
Blanket blow-off is a problem, of course they deserve better. But none of this seems to suggest a solution, only reasons to strive for some solution which in and of itself does have some value. I think using the .INT TLD could be helpful but misses the main point vis a vis WHO.BICYCLES etc. To my understanding of the problem it's not that IGOs et al want some identifiable domain, they want some way to stop fraudulent domains. HOWEVER, the higher-level SSL cert could suggest something of a partial solution: Register IGOs et al in the TMCH database with a new flag which says to register a domain in any nTLD using this registered string one must present a validated SSL certificate identifying the organization purchasing the string. For example suppose WHO passes on WHO.BICYCLES, but "WHO" is in the TMCH database. Another party comes along later and registers WHO.BICYCLES. Since "WHO" is flagged as I described in the TMCH databases the registrar must require a validated SSL certificate for that organization. There are some mechanical details (how does one get a validated certificate before registering?) which I believe could be worked out. Lack of such a validated certificate prevents the organization from registering WHO.BICYCLES. Presentation of a validated certificate at least provides some positive identification of who is now trying to register WHO.BICYCLES. And validated SSL certificates aren't easy to obtain by miscreants. However, all this still provides no protection for "confusingly similar" domains such as WHO-UN.BICYCLES if WHO-UN is not specifically registered in the TMCH database. In summary: All security amounts to avoidance, prevention, detection, recovery. 1. Can we avoid the problem beforehand? 2. Can we actually prevent the problem (stronger than "avoid"). 3. Can we effectively detect there has been a problem? 4. Finally if a problem occurs is there a reasonable recovery procedure in place? The certificate suggestion I offered falls into #1, #3, and #4. Avoidance: Makes it more difficult to register a confusingly similar string (e.g., if one can't qualify for a validated SSL certificate) Detection: Helps positively identify a suspected abuser. Recovery: Provides evidence to take down the offending domain and pursue remedies by identifying the abuser. I realize someone will likely jump in here referencing real or imagined flaws in validated SSL certificates procedures. That may be so, and they continue to be a work in progress, but they are a commonly available tool and have some merits in all this. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I've been watching this conversation. And it strikes me that we have a hammer and thus we have become locked into a tunnel vision in which we perceive the issue only as a nail. But there are other approaches that have not been raised. Let me begin with an aside and note the assumptions by Barry S and others that IGO names are somehow "trademarks". Notice the structure of that word, "trademark" - "trade" "mark". A trademark is something used by those in commerce. IGO's are not normally in commerce and thus not in "trade". However this is but a distraction of historical interest and not the main thrust of this e-mail. Rather, I am asserting that trademark principles, even if we wanted to use them, are not the best vehicle through which IGOs can obtain the ends they desire. The purpose of a trademark arose from a need of buyers (not sellers) of goods (and services) to have solid assurances of the source of those goods and services. The system of trade and service marks is to benefit consumers by allowing vendors to place trustworthy marks on their products and to have means to remove counterfeit or confusingly similar goods and services. But that was then and this is now, and we are dealing with digital matters. And for digital matters a whole new technology has grown over the last few decades - digital signatures. With this technology there is no need of trademarks. Rather a consumer can test a digital signature on a digital product to be assured not only of its source but also that the product has not been modified. That means that digital signatures do what trademarks do and more. So what do IGO's want? They want some way to assure the world of consumers that the electronic materials they publish and their electronic interfaces to accept input are actually published by those IGOs. For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established certificate authorities around the world. They can use TLS to identify their web offerings - and any consumer can walk up the certificate chain to check that they are chatting with the IGO itself and not a fake. And they can use digital signatures on individual documents so that even outside the web and HTTPS those documents can be validated for integrity of source and content. And they can use DNSSEC to assure that the domain name records they publish have not been altered or usurped. So ICANN could be blunt and tell the IGO's that ICANN has done enough already, that ICANN refuses to undertake yet another expansion of its non-technical role as internet name policeman, and that the IGOs already possess, and should use, the tools they need to reach the actual goals to which they aspire. --karl--
On 5 November 2016 at 01:14, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established certificate authorities around the world.
Funny, that doesn't appear to be sufficient for trademark holders. If it was simple as that we wouldn't need clearing houses and adjudication procedures whose resolution isn't done just by algorithm. Yet ICANN has seemed fit to bestow this myriad of non-technical protection measures to trademarks, but is satisfied to stop short of offering similar protection to non-commercial trustworthy names. So *this* is the place to draw the line and say "no more protections"? Good luck with that.
any consumer can walk up the certificate chain to check that they are chatting with the IGO itself and not a fake.
This is the point at which I stopped reading. To expect Internet end-users -- especially newcomers -- to understand (let alone trace and discern legitimate certificates from fakes) Internet digital signatures is a recipe for utter failure. Unless and until that process is seamless globally, it is a wholly unsatisfactory solution. Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS. So perhaps partnership with other bodies is in order, to strengthen and simplify the infrastructure and to engage in public education on self-defence. ICANN has traditionaly avoided such alliances, perhaps it is time to re-think. But really? It's up to Internet end-users to "walk up the certificate chain" else they deserve to be scammed? And trademark holders get preferential treatment over names created by international treaty? If that's the best ICANN can do in response to this kind of challenge, you might as well start prepping for another transition. - Evan
On 11/4/16 5:48 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 5 November 2016 at 01:14, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@cavebear.com>>wrote:
For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established certificate authorities around the world.
Funny, that doesn't appear to be sufficient for trademark holders. Yeah, I know. TM lawyers, like most lawyers, are trained to live in the past. Innovation is not something that is favored in the legal profession.
If it was simple as that we wouldn't need clearing houses and adjudication procedures whose resolution isn't done just by algorithm. It could be. It is done by our web browsers, often hundreds of times a minute, when they track up certificate chains on HTTPS websites and post those little colored security status symbols (or complain of self-signed certs.)
any consumer can walk up the certificate chain to check that they are chatting with the IGO itself and not a fake.
This is the point at which I stopped reading. Yes, walking chains of references is mind numbing, but it what web browsers do all the time (as I mentioned, often hundreds of times a minute for each separate user's web browser) and also what DNSSEC user software can do within milliseconds.
End users, even newcomers, need not deal with this - except to notice warning indicators. This stuff gets built into the software of browsers and DNS resolvers. Far too often that last step of checking is left out - it is a weakness of DNSSEC that few users (or the code they use) actually bother to take a look at the validity information that the DNSSEC deployment makes available. That's not ICANN's problem; rather it is an example of the old notion of bringing the camel to the water but not being able to make it drink. Over the stage at Royce Hall (UCLA) is this saying: "“Education is learning to use the /tools/ which the race has found indispensable." We ought to recognize that in these modern days, public key systems have become one of those tools that we have found to be indispensable - and we ought to use those tools when they are appropriate. And when others demand that we use weaker, inadequate tools we should say "no".
Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS. IGO name protection is not a DNS issue; it ought to be far outside ICANN's scope. To conclude otherwise is to make ICANN the protector of all names, for everyone who expresses a desire for protection - in other words the worldwide name cop. That's would be a massive expansion of an already bloated scope.
--karl--
On November 4, 2016 at 19:08 karl@cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) wrote:
Maybe the answer is not completely within ICANN's remit but it absolutely within mandate to maintain trust in the DNS.
IGO name protection is not a DNS issue; it ought to be far outside ICANN's scope. To conclude otherwise is to make ICANN the protector of all names, for everyone who expresses a desire for protection - in other words the worldwide name cop. That's would be a massive expansion of an already bloated scope.
Unfortunately that cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, that ship has sailed, possibly off the ends of the earth. We have TMCH, special rights for ICRC and Olympics, URS, UDRP, geographic names, community names, etc. Now because a problem seems hard ICANN can wash their hands of it? I tend to agree with the principle that ICANN should never have ventured into this. I expressed this in strong terms to a couple of board members right after the San Francisco ICANN (2011) open meeting. Someone had gone to the microphone and gave a heartfelt speech about how .KIDS must be protected for the children etc. And a couple of board members at the dais responded that this was assuredly their intent (I assume transcripts are available.) I said I am going to buy the board a large unabridged dictionary and they can and should begin going through it entry by entry, all 470,000 or so words (source: Mirriam-Webster), indicating ICANN policy on each word. Because that's where this is going. And, now, has gone. Too late. We're here. One can't at this late date wave off GAC et al because all this was never a good idea. That reeks of disingenuousness at this point. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 5 November 2016 at 03:08, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: walking chains of references is mind numbing, but it what web browsers do
all the time (as I mentioned, often hundreds of times a minute for each separate user's web browser) and also what DNSSEC user software can do within milliseconds.
I consider myself a not-unsophistcated user of Internet-access software, to the point that I serve as informal tech support for far more people than I'd like. The page that Google Chrome provides when it's confused by a certificate instance is as oppressive as the Blue Screen of Death. The other browsers are even worse. We're generations away from the level of simplicity that would be needed to eliminate web-based scammers by digitally flagging them as such. ICANN has an interesst in accelerating this progress, for the sake of public trust and stability, but it certainly ought not to do this itself. That's what I meant by being part of alliances rather than engage in mission creep.
IGO name protection is not a DNS issue; it ought to be far outside ICANN's scope.
Ought to, sure, but it's way too late for that debate now. ICANN got itself sucked into name protection long ago, and that can't be undone. So now telling the world that coke.foo needs (and has) elaborate protection mechamisms (even going beyond global trademark norms), but that redcross.foo has none of those protections and won't ever get them, is not an exercise in trust-building. And, as a non-treaty organization, ICANN is highly dependent on public trust. Unfortunately, thanks to choices already made by ICANN, the challenges here have been irreversibly rendered political rather than technical. And "Let them eat SSL" does not make for a winning political strategy. - Evan
A possibly useful concept from of all things the old X11 graphics standards days was the oft-heard slogan: Mechanism, Not Policy! Ok, that's a blurred line. But it can be a useful construct to dissect potential solutions. What is mechanism? What is policy? Registering in TMCH and the results of that such as warnings about strings is largely mechanism. Of course all mechanism either implements or constrains -- "that's impossible to implement!" -- policy. But when one has a potentially large problem it's helpful to try to break it into useful parts. For example talk about certificates has been revolving around mechanism here, to a great extent. How do they work? How might they help? And policy is, well everyone here knows what policy means, it's the "why" part and what one is trying accomplish, mechanism is the "how". -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established certificate authorities around the world.
This is an impressively disingenuous argument. I have a couple of dozen certificates on my web and mail servers, and they say no more than that the entity proffering the certificate is the same one that passed a trivial test to see that it controlled a domain name or web server. If I registered WORLD-HEALTH-ORGANIZATION.ORG (it's available) it would take about two minutes to get a 100% valid Let's Encrypt TLS certificate with a 100% valid certificate chain. But it wouldn't mean I was the WHO. Barry is wrong, IGO names are not trademarks because they're not used to identify goods or services used in commerce. But I think they do merit protection similar to that provided to trademarks. As others have noted, it's not surprising that the IGOs and their government sponsors are not eager for a rerun of the same process that blew them off last time. So since what they want is at worst harmless to the at-large users, just give it to them. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
On 11/4/16 10:05 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
For that purpose they need not come to ICANN for protection; they already have the tools they need - digital certificates from the established certificate authorities around the world.
This is an impressively disingenuous argument. I have a couple of dozen certificates on my web and mail servers, and they say no more than that the entity proffering the certificate is the same one that passed a trivial test to see that it controlled a domain name or web server. Disingenuous? Is that the new way to spell "clever". ;-)
With what I propose the IGO's can easily set up their own highly exclusive CA and make it clear that if the cert chain does not originate there then the name is bogus. Easy to do. And it requires no expansion of ICANN's role. Obviously the desire of some parties here is to regulate because, well, it is fun to be a regulator and tell people what to do and build ever expanding organizational org charts. It is far less fun back off, be "hands off", and let people and IGO's solve their own problems with the technical tools that internet innovation has provided. Barry S. raised a good question - Which is because ICANN's nose is already under the tent we may as well let the entire camel inside. My response is that we should push the nose back outside and get ICANN out of the role of regulating business practices and leave that to authorities that have better legislative and judicial credentials. --karl--
With what I propose the IGO's can easily set up their own highly exclusive CA and make it clear that if the cert chain does not originate there then the name is bogus. Easy to do. And it requires no expansion of ICANN's role.
And the locks from the wonderful CA will look just like the ones from Let's Encrypt, so it won't help users at all. Or if they send spam, I suppose they could sign stuff with S/MIME, but users don't understand what an S/MIME icon in a mail program means, and none of the popular webmail systems don't handle S/MIME at all. If you're imagining that browser makers would change their browsers to display the lock from the wonderful CA in a particularly wonderful way, good luck with that. R's, John
On 11/5/16 3:38 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
With what I propose the IGO's can easily set up their own highly exclusive CA and make it clear that if the cert chain does not originate there then the name is bogus. Easy to do. And it requires no expansion of ICANN's role.
And the locks from the wonderful CA will look just like the ones from Let's Encrypt, so it won't help users at all. So the answer that you propose is an ever-growing regulatory body that, like a coal mining machine, slowly consumes the landscape of language, leaving in its wake an internet ever more heavily regulated and taxed?
The proposal I have made requires none of that. Rather, it might require that IGO's collectively go to the browser makers (all three or four of 'em) and ask (or pay) 'em to add a bit of new code, or they go the easier route and publish a plugin, like the popular Calomel plugin. By-the-way, I am surprised that no one has bothered to mention an even easier approach - which is to require that IGO's who want protection do so by putting their names under a special TLD for international governmental bodies. Perhaps ICANN can give the ITU the .itu TLD and let them manage it to satisfy demands by international bodies. Again, a solution that requires no new structure or power in ICANN. As I began my original comment - many among us have tunnel vision that sees gluing yet another regulatory lump onto ICANN as the solution to every problem. --karl--
And the locks from the wonderful CA will look just like the ones from Let's Encrypt, so it won't help users at all.
So the answer that you propose is an ever-growing regulatory body that, like a coal mining machine, slowly consumes the landscape of language, leaving in its wake an internet ever more heavily regulated and taxed?
Nope. But thanks for asking. R's, John
On November 5, 2016 at 10:35 johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) wrote:
Barry is wrong, IGO names are not trademarks because they're not used to identify goods or services used in commerce. But I think they do merit protection similar to that provided to trademarks. As others have noted, it's not surprising that the IGOs and their government sponsors are not eager for a rerun of the same process that blew them off last time. So since what they want is at worst harmless to the at-large users, just give it to them.
You're somewhat right, I was somewhat wrong. In the spirit of questioning all my own assumptions I did a little research and found for example a document from UNICEF: UNICEF Guidelines and Manual for Working with the Business Community dated 2001, a short, 4 page, pdf, I saved the pdf but not the link sorry, I could retrace: In it is the following text: 12. The UNICEF name, logo, and emblem are not trademarks. They are not registered as trademarks or protected under trademark laws. They are protected under a special international convention, the Paris Convention. The UNICEF name, logo and emblem may not be registered as trademarks by any UNICEF office or National Committee, and they should not be referred to as trademarks in any legal or other documents. A little more research reveals this letter to ICANN (specifically Rod Beckstrom, Heather Dryden, et al) dated 13-Dec-2011 (4 pages): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-... Which is all relevant but here is some specific text: The names and acronyms of IGOs are protected within the scope of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (with 173 Contracting Parties), as further referred to in Article 16 of the Trademark Law Treaty and Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. We also note that the “GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs” of ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee call on ICANN to make proper allowance for IGO protection in the domain name system. and this 13 page document whose date I don't see, more research: WIPO Briefing Note: The Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/JWGW2/WIPO2-note.pdf with the following interesting text (again, it's all relevent): The existing basis for protecting the names and acronyms of IGOs in international intellectual property law is summarized in paragraphs 128 to 137 of the WIPO II Report: 128. The existing international legal framework contains clearly expressed and widely accepted (through applicable constitutional processes) principles prohibiting the unauthorized commercial use, as trademarks, of the names and acronyms of IGOs. 129. Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (the Paris Convention), to which 162 States [now: 168 States] are party, provides, inter alia: ‘(1)(a) The countries of the Union agree to refuse or to invalidate the registration, and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, without authorization by the competent authorities, either as trademarks or as elements of trademarks, of armorial bearings, flags, and other State emblems, of the countries of the Union, official signs and hallmarks indicating control and warranty adopted by them, and any imitation from a heraldic point of view. ‘(b) The provisions of subparagraph (a), above, shall apply equally to . . . abbreviations, and names, of international intergovernmental organizations of which one or more countries of the Union are members, with the exception of . . . abbreviations, and names, that are already the subject of international agreements in force, intended to ensure their protection.’ ... 131. The Paris Convention, (Article 6ter (1)(b)), accordingly prohibits the registration and use of, inter alia, the names or abbreviations of IGOs as trademarks or elements of trademarks. The Trademark Law Treaty of 1994 (Article 16) extends the same protection against registration and use with respect to service marks. There's more, better if you read it for yourselves. My barely educated take: The IGOs (et al) assert by international treaty a higher or alternate force -- than the usual common and legal use of the term "trademark" -- embedded in international law to protect their marks. So, we're dealing with a very different kettle of fish here and reference to one's understandings of "trademark" as used in other contexts is largely irrelevant in this case. Start all over again! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
On 5 November 2016 at 19:16, <bzs@theworld.com> wrote:
The IGOs (et al) assert by international treaty a higher or alternate force -- than the usual common and legal use of the term "trademark" -- embedded in international law to protect their marks.
Voila. The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the rest of the world -- sees name protection as nothing more than a matter of trademark; one of its stakeholder groups exist for no other reason than to assert this. So anything else is deemed out of scope. In addition to ALAC supporting Red Cross protection in 2012-13 (in opposition to most of the GNSO), there have been some within At-Large who identified other non-traditional forms of intellectual property used in the world (such as aboriginal traditional wisdom); they too were also blown off. But At-Large doesn't have the "or else" threat that governments possess, so its issues can be -- and have been -- harmlessly ignored.) As Barry noted, ICANN was alerted about the IGO issue in 2011. The current outrage at bypassing process conveniently forgets that once upon a time they tried to play the game by the usual rules and were blown off. So the conventional process failed. Start all over again!
Not necessarily. As I have repeatedly mentioned, the concept of the Cross-Community Working Group is a great step in the right direction as it brings in other concerned groups as equal, not subservient, to the GNSO's. It ap p ears to have worked well for the IANA transition. Eventually the PDP must evolve towards a CCWG-like structure if more IGO -t ype of conflict is to be avoided going forward. I t is too late to use this to claw back some of ICANN's most critical core mistakes (such as the choice to get involved in name protection at all). But going forward, expanding decision-making beyond the domain buyer-seller compact is critical going forward. - Evan
Evan,
The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the rest of the world
I really don't know why you keep repeating that mantra. You know just as well as I that the GNSO is not just "domain buyers and sellers". The non-contracted parties house, half of GNSO, consists of people who *don't* represent domain business.
As Barry noted, ICANN was alerted about the IGO issue in 2011. The current outrage at bypassing process conveniently forgets that once upon a time they tried to play the game by the usual rules and were blown off. So the conventional process failed.
Yes, the conventional process failed, but we seem to disagree about the reasons for that failure. I seem to remember that the GNSO NPOC constituency was specifically created for the IGO's, but they lost interest as soon as they discovered that it was easier to ask the GAC and the ICANN board to help them instead. Julf
On 6 November 2016 at 19:34, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
Evan,
The GNSO -- domain buyers and sellers divorced from the realities of the rest of the world
I really don't know why you keep repeating that mantra. You know just as well as I that the GNSO is not just "domain buyers and sellers". The non-contracted parties house, half of GNSO, consists of people who *don't* represent domain business.
It's not a mantra, it's absolute truth. The CPH is the sellers of domains. The NCPH is the buyers. There is no other house representing those who are neither buyers nor sellers yet are still affected by the DNS ... like law enforcement and IGOs and consumer groups and aboriginal name holders and victims of domain abuse. Whether you agree or not, the ICANN bylaws are quite clear in specifying the community home of non-domain-owning end-users: It's At-Large community, conveniently and deliberately kept outside the GNSO. Governments are likewise kept to the side as advisors. The NCPH is not the domain industry, but is its marketplace and the sole source of ICANN's revenue. It represents trademark holders, domainers, and casual owners, You can't even join the NCSG without owning a domain (ref: NCSG Charter, 2.2.1.2 for organizations, 2.2.5.1 for individuals). While the existence of few NomCom people on GNSO (and a nonvoting ALAC liaison) offer a mild attempt at outside balance, the bylaws make clear. The GNSO, if a policy mandate achieves consensus between domain buyers and sellers, can (and IMO frequently has) advance policy that goes against the public interest. If you're neither domain buyer nor seller -- that is, most of the world -- you have no representation on GNSO. Feel free to disagree, but that is the functional (and bylaw-defined) reality. Yes, the conventional process failed, but we seem to disagree about
the reasons for that failure. I seem to remember that the GNSO NPOC constituency was specifically created for the IGO's, but they lost interest as soon as they discovered that it was easier to ask the GAC and the ICANN board to help them instead.
And why was it easier? Because the rest of the GNSO wouldn't take their requests seriously. Do you recall the lengthy, painful process to get the NPOC started in the first place? Given the huge amount of effort expended to get it approved, its creators had substantial investment in making NPOC work. Walking away in frustration only happened after long futile efforts to be heard. This is why the complaints of "why didn't they use our process?" are so laughable. Their attempts to work within the system are well documented, as was their treatment by the rest of the "community". - Evan
On 06-11-16 20:57, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
There is no other house representing those who are neither buyers nor sellers yet are still affected by the DNS ... like law enforcement and IGOs and consumer groups and aboriginal name holders and victims of domain abuse.
Well, apart from the commercial and business user constituency, the intellectual property interests constituency, and most of the non- commercial stakeholders group.
Whether you agree or not, the ICANN bylaws are quite clear in specifying the community home of non-domain-owning end-users: It's At-Large community
And why wouldn't I agree with that?
conveniently and deliberately kept outside the GNSO.
That's the part I disagree with.
Governments are likewise kept to the side as advisors.
Can you, with a straight face, claim GAC is kept to the side? We do have to remember that the "A" in both GAC and ALAC stands for "Advice". That advice is always noted and processed, but advice is not mandatory. Often the advice leads to pointing out that the advice is contrary to existing policy and processes, and that usually comes with a recommendation to start a consensus policy process to accommodate the situation - and that is exactly what we expect in the IGO situation as well.
If you're neither domain buyer nor seller -- that is, most of the world -- you have no representation on GNSO. Feel free to disagree, but that is the functional (and bylaw-defined) reality.
I feel free to point out that I am a voting member of the GNSO Council that incidentally happens, because of historical reasons, to own julf.com (oh, and penet.fi too), but apart from that my only association with domains was running the .fi ccTLD back more than 20 years ago...
And why was it easier? Because the rest of the GNSO wouldn't take their requests seriously.
You don't always get what you want. It doesn't automatically imply that the system is rigged.
This is why the complaints of "why didn't they use our process?" are so laughable. Their attempts to work within the system are well documented, as was their treatment by the rest of the "community".
I would love pointers to that documentation. Julf
Good evening: There are several issues of basic public interest that should in future be addressed by CCWGs and not by GNSO PDPs. The Community should ensure the neutrality or the balance of the co-Chairs for those CCWG. ICANN staff should provide a neutral secretariat for the work of CCWGs. CW On 06 Nov 2016, at 19:34, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
On November 5, 2016 at 21:19 evan@telly.org (Evan Leibovitch) wrote:
As Barry noted, ICANN was alerted about the IGO issue in 2011. The current outrage at bypassing process conveniently forgets that once upon a time they tried to play the game by the usual rules and were blown off. So the conventional process failed.
That was only incidental to what I found in my research. What gave me pause was realizing how much the GAC vis a vis IGO name protection and everyone else seemed to be talking past each other. Trying to swim upstream against an international treaty signed by 173 countries seems, well, quixotic. And perhaps not even justified no matter what one's personal feelings are on the issue. At some point one has to consider yielding to the facts, or at least dealing with the facts.
Start all over again!
Not necessarily. As I have repeatedly mentioned, the concept of the Cross-Community Working Group is a great step in the right direction as it brings in other concerned groups as equal, not subservient, to the GNSO's. It ap p ears to have worked well for the IANA transition. Eventually the PDP must evolve towards a CCWG-like structure if more IGO -t ype of conflict is to be avoided going forward.
I t is too late to use this to claw back some of ICANN's most critical core mistakes (such as the choice to get involved in name protection at all). But going forward, expanding decision-making beyond the domain buyer-seller compact is critical going forward.
I tend to agree with this last point though how to do that doesn't leap out. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
At 02/11/2016 09:58 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
That is exactly the position of GNSO - there are already protection mechanisms in place for intellectual property protection in the procedures. Somehow some IGO's just seem to want to be special.
Unless I've missed something, the TMCH et al are for trademarks. IGO names typically aren't trademarks.
Correct, but there has been a realization that the process that was set up for TMs can be useful in the protection of other non-TM character strings. Alan
On November 2, 2016 at 20:05 julf@julf.com (Johan Helsingius) wrote:
Barry,
When you analyze this it's anyone with a recognizable mark. This is really just a special case of intellectual property protection.
That is exactly the position of GNSO - there are already protection mechanisms in place for intellectual property protection in the procedures. Somehow some IGO's just seem to want to be special.
The devil as always is in the details. My sense is that in principle everyone wants to do the right thing but what exactly that right thing is remains unclear. A success would be formulating some overarching resolution which will be useful in the no doubt many other cases which will come forward. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
I can attest Evan's position is consistent with his position in historical discussion - even his railing against the IOC! :-) - and retains my support. +1 -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
As the Hyderabad meeting gets underway, we have a potential for a conflict that, according to some, is a source of utter panic and a critical-enough battle that it is worth threatening ICANN's stability... and people still haven't yet fully recovered from the transition and the Ted Cruz scare.
I am speaking of the Governmental Advisory Commitee (GAC) wanting to reserve about 230 names and acronyms of inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), and its threat to pull out of ICANN entirely and take its issues to the ITU Standardization Assembly.
The whole story can be found in a post at DomainIncite <http://domainincite.com/21215-rant-governments-raise-yet-another-un-threat-t...> that contains both profanity and apocalyptic tones.
At the threat of being an ICANN heretic (and it wouldn't be the first time), I'm on the side of the governments here.
[ Disclosure: I currently work at an agency that would be among the protected IGOs. However I have been involved in this issue, at the ICANN working group level, for many years, and my position is no different now than it was then. ]
While it is overkill to give a blanket ban on every IGO, I would rather give protection to a handful of organizations that don't need it, in return for protecting a number of organizations that would be critically impacted if their names were not protected. I am speaking specifically regarding organizations that do significant public fundraising in the public good -- the Red Cross (+ Red Crescent, etc), UNICEF, UNHCR, and others
I was involved when the issue first came up in 2011; there was a working group that was proposing to reserve names for the Red Cross and Olympics in all gTLDs. Most in the group were either all-for or all-against; I was split, opposing the Olympic reservations but strongly supporting reservations of any Red Cross related names or translations.
I still believe that the ICRC needs protection more than the IOC, but given the choice of protecting both or protecting neither I would absolutely come down on the side of "both". *There most absolutely is a public interest in the reservation of names related to the Red Cross, United Nations and other IGOs, especially those that are engaged in public information or fundraising.*
It matters far more to me that a scammer is prevented before-the-fact from registering "redcross-italy-earthquake.xyz" than that the domain industry is free to sell "UNDP.whatever" to a speculator. By the time a URS claim could be filed against the scammer and adjudicated, the damage is done and the scammer moves on.
IMO it is not in the interest of the At-Large community to support the unfettered entitlement of the domain industry to sell whatever it wants without consideration of consequences. It is in our interests to keep the public from being harmed through the actions of the DNS. And, *on the balance*, this means that reserving the names of IGOs serves the public interest.
The domain industry's main counter-argument is that it should be entitled to sell whatever it wants. It believes that that WHO, the acronym for the World Health Organization but also a dictionary word, should be fair game to be sold as a domain to an ageing rock band or anyone else.
But I am concerned that a scammer -- or others with bad intent -- could use the WHO.something domain to present themselves as the World Health Organization and either present misinformation or engage in scamming fundraising. In a public-health context such misuse could have horrible aftermath.The harm to the domain community by blocking WHO.everything is less, IMO, than the harm to the public from letting that go to the highest bidder. (Of course the WHO is always within its ability to permit who.something to point to the rock band, etc)
If the counter is that ICANN's MSM process does not allow for this kind of accommodation -- that the GNSO demands for wide open domains do not provide for this kind of exception -- then the process is broken. It must be remembered that -- pre-transition or post- -- ICANN is not itself an IGO. Sovereign states are not treaty-bound to honor GNSO policy decrees, they do so through trust and goodwill. If that goodwill is damaged then, ICANN will pay a heavy and possibly irreversible price.
There are many good places to take a principled stand in support of the MSM and against dictatorial control of the DNS. But reserving IGO names is not one of those good places. As much as I abhor the reserving of the string "olympic", that speaks more to my personal belief in the corruption of the IOC than principled opposition to the concept.
If the ALAC is consulted on this issue -- or if it considers issuing advice on its own initiative -- I simply ask that it asserts the point of view of the public interest, which is not always in selling the maximum number of domains for the maximum obtainable price.
Thank you. Evan Leibovitch Toronto / Geneva
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
participants (18)
-
Alan Greenberg -
bzs@TheWorld.com -
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
CW Mail -
Derek Smythe -
Evan Leibovitch -
Javier Rua -
Johan Helsingius -
John R. Levine -
Karl Auerbach -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano -
Seun Ojedeji -
svg@milathan.ltd -
Vanda Scartezini -
Winthrop Yu -
Yrjö Länsipuro