infographic ICANN & Human Rights v0.3 pls comment
Dear all, Please find a new version of the vizualization of ICANN and Human Rights based on all your great inputs. The fact that this draft got several really good discussions going here gives me high hopes for what this can do outside of this mailinglist! Please comment again to make it even better! Cheers, Niels PS Avri, it would be really great if you have the time to propose text for the AGB points you made.
Hi Niels and All, I look down this beautiful and brilliant chart, and there is something that seems to be missing. As many of you know, I have been in ICANN since the beginning and there is an issue that is key to individual rights, but not mentioned (I don't think) on your slide and that is is the right for all to access basic words -- also first and last names -- in the Domain Name System. As you know, IP addresses are numbers and domain names are words and numbers created to give some IP addresses an easy and memorable string of characters. What we have found since the beginning of domain names opening widely to the public (mid-1990s) is that some people believe their trademarks are words that are "off-limits" to others. That is, some trademark owners, want to "own" their trademarks online and throughout the Domain Name System. Specifically, they want to deprive anyone else of the rights to use their "letters/words" without their permission. Strangely, this desire stretches not just to domain names that are a) commercial, b) would cause confusion to their trademarked goods and services, and are c) "coined and fanciful" (made up -- like Xerox or Haagen Dazs), but to the most basic of dictionary words and the most common of first and last names. *In the Noncommercial Users Constituency (dating back to the beginning of ICANN) and the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (more recent) we have fought for Generic Words, Dictionary Words, Common First Names and Common Last Names to be Open and Available to Everyone. *Words like PANTHER are trademarked in the US Trademark Office many, many times: for golf clothing, tires, a relatively new football team, and much more. Doesn't that right belong to all online? NCUC/NCSG have fought hard and continuously for the Right to Basic Dictionary Words as a critical right for all. It is a our legal right to use FOX, ORANGE, WENDY, MCDONALD, WINDOW, LIFE, TIME, FORTUNE and PEOPLE without prior permission, without blocking, without revocation, and without prior proof that our domain name is OK -- provided our use is legal and legitimate (noninfringing, such as a noncommercial use, or a "fair use" such a legitimate criticism or critique of a corporation). - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies? - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name? - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)? The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names. /*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table? *//* */ /*Best regards,*/ /*Kathy (Kleiman) */ On 6/1/2016 12:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find a new version of the vizualization of ICANN and Human Rights based on all your great inputs.
The fact that this draft got several really good discussions going here gives me high hopes for what this can do outside of this mailinglist!
Please comment again to make it even better!
Cheers,
Niels
PS Avri, it would be really great if you have the time to propose text for the AGB points you made.
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table?
Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name? As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…" -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name? As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */ Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes! Kathy On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table?
Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
Hi, While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights. It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective. Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue. We saw that division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed purposes. There are those, like me, who thought that of course they could do that. There those who argue that this is the egregious cultural theft. I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR based rights perspective. Would be good to getndle on it since it is a persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP. avri On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */
Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes!
Kathy
On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table?
Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi all, To make this more clear, is this concept part of specific policy / text where we can link / refer to in the graph? Cheers, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/01/2016 10:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights. It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective.
Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue. We saw that division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed purposes. There are those, like me, who thought that of course they could do that. There those who argue that this is the egregious cultural theft. I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR based rights perspective. Would be good to getndle on it since it is a persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP.
avri
On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */
Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes!
Kathy
On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table?
Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi Avri, As you know, the closed gTLD issue had many origins, including deep competition issues, so I think the issues here are a little different. What I am pointing out is that the Human Rights document does not actually include a major issue that the public interest advocates in ICANN have been working on for over 15 years. And that the use of the Internet infrastructure to seek ways to allow certain trademark owners to dominate basic dictionary words. I can't think of a more basic right than the right to use our names (first and last) and basic dictionary and descriptive words in legal and noninfringing ways. That's what completely legal outside of the Internet. Yet again and again trademark owners have come to ICANN seeking additional protections -- including the right to block basic dictionary words (which happen to be trademarks) in all second level domains. In fact, I note Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Table embodies this ides of "ownership" of a string of letters in the Domain Name System -- completely contrary to free expression, fair use and "free use of common words" arguments that many in the Noncommercial Users Constituency have made for years. - For example, "Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs" -- The International Govermental Organizations have come in many times to ICANN seeking to protect **their acronyms** in all second level domain names. But that would mean that the World Health Organization (WHO) would then "own" the word "WHO" online in all gTLDs -- although a famous rock group, The Who, should probably have a future WHO.ROCKANDROLL and someone might legitimately want to register WHO, WHAT, WHY, and WHERE and some future .REPORTING generic top level domain to teach the basics of reporting. All of these acronyms are used many, many times by organizations and companies... So far, the answer has been No. Why would this Table say otherwise??? Overall, trademarks need protecting, but so does the balance of language and its use by all. How can you can protect trademark rights without protecting the traditional balances to trademark rights? And if so, where are the protections for the traditional limits of a trademark (which is a limited right to use a term/terms for a specific commercial category of goods and services), and yet not block all forms of noncommercial and commercial non-infringing and legal use? Almost every word is trademarked in the US Trademark Office, yet we have not stopped speaking yet ... :-)... or naming our children, organizations, groups and small businesses.. or criticizing corporations that need it, brands that harm people, and corporate practices that abuse them... Are such rights embodied in the Table? Guidance welcome! Best, Kathy (Kleiman) On 6/1/2016 4:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights. It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective.
Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue. We saw that division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed purposes. There are those, like me, who thought that of course they could do that. There those who argue that this is the egregious cultural theft. I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR based rights perspective. Would be good to getndle on it since it is a persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP.
avri
On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */
Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes!
Kathy
On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table? Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi Kathy, Great one, we indeed did not cover that. I agree that the right you describe is a very strong one and I suggest we put it under 'Freedom of Expression' > Free and fair use of domain names > Dictionary words in the DNS not protected through trademarks Would this cover it? Very open for suggestions of course! Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/02/2016 06:56 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Avri,
As you know, the closed gTLD issue had many origins, including deep competition issues, so I think the issues here are a little different. What I am pointing out is that the Human Rights document does not actually include a major issue that the public interest advocates in ICANN have been working on for over 15 years. And that the use of the Internet infrastructure to seek ways to allow certain trademark owners to dominate basic dictionary words. I can't think of a more basic right than the right to use our names (first and last) and basic dictionary and descriptive words in legal and noninfringing ways. That's what completely legal outside of the Internet. Yet again and again trademark owners have come to ICANN seeking additional protections -- including the right to block basic dictionary words (which happen to be trademarks) in all second level domains.
In fact, I note Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Table embodies this ides of "ownership" of a string of letters in the Domain Name System -- completely contrary to free expression, fair use and "free use of common words" arguments that many in the Noncommercial Users Constituency have made for years.
- For example, "Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs" -- The International Govermental Organizations have come in many times to ICANN seeking to protect **their acronyms** in all second level domain names. But that would mean that the World Health Organization (WHO) would then "own" the word "WHO" online in all gTLDs -- although a famous rock group, The Who, should probably have a future WHO.ROCKANDROLL and someone might legitimately want to register WHO, WHAT, WHY, and WHERE and some future .REPORTING generic top level domain to teach the basics of reporting. All of these acronyms are used many, many times by organizations and companies... So far, the answer has been No. Why would this Table say otherwise???
Overall, trademarks need protecting, but so does the balance of language and its use by all. How can you can protect trademark rights without protecting the traditional balances to trademark rights? And if so, where are the protections for the traditional limits of a trademark (which is a limited right to use a term/terms for a specific commercial category of goods and services), and yet not block all forms of noncommercial and commercial non-infringing and legal use?
Almost every word is trademarked in the US Trademark Office, yet we have not stopped speaking yet ... :-)... or naming our children, organizations, groups and small businesses.. or criticizing corporations that need it, brands that harm people, and corporate practices that abuse them... Are such rights embodied in the Table? Guidance welcome!
Best, Kathy (Kleiman)
On 6/1/2016 4:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights. It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective.
Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue. We saw that division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed purposes. There are those, like me, who thought that of course they could do that. There those who argue that this is the egregious cultural theft. I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR based rights perspective. Would be good to getndle on it since it is a persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP.
avri
On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */
Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes!
Kathy
On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table? Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Hi, I guess my issue then is with the fact that IP mechanisms are included under Freedom of Expression. I do not see the connection there either. While there may be ESCR that guarantee the personal "material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he (sic) is the author" (15c), i don't see the connection between FoE and IP. Those have their basis elsewhere. As does right to the linguistic commons. avri avri On 02-Jun-16 12:56, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Avri,
As you know, the closed gTLD issue had many origins, including deep competition issues, so I think the issues here are a little different. What I am pointing out is that the Human Rights document does not actually include a major issue that the public interest advocates in ICANN have been working on for over 15 years. And that the use of the Internet infrastructure to seek ways to allow certain trademark owners to dominate basic dictionary words. I can't think of a more basic right than the right to use our names (first and last) and basic dictionary and descriptive words in legal and noninfringing ways. That's what completely legal outside of the Internet. Yet again and again trademark owners have come to ICANN seeking additional protections -- including the right to block basic dictionary words (which happen to be trademarks) in all second level domains.
In fact, I note Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Table embodies this ides of "ownership" of a string of letters in the Domain Name System -- completely contrary to free expression, fair use and "free use of common words" arguments that many in the Noncommercial Users Constituency have made for years.
- For example, "Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs" -- The International Govermental Organizations have come in many times to ICANN seeking to protect **their acronyms** in all second level domain names. But that would mean that the World Health Organization (WHO) would then "own" the word "WHO" online in all gTLDs -- although a famous rock group, The Who, should probably have a future WHO.ROCKANDROLL and someone might legitimately want to register WHO, WHAT, WHY, and WHERE and some future .REPORTING generic top level domain to teach the basics of reporting. All of these acronyms are used many, many times by organizations and companies... So far, the answer has been No. Why would this Table say otherwise???
Overall, trademarks need protecting, but so does the balance of language and its use by all. How can you can protect trademark rights without protecting the traditional balances to trademark rights? And if so, where are the protections for the traditional limits of a trademark (which is a limited right to use a term/terms for a specific commercial category of goods and services), and yet not block all forms of noncommercial and commercial non-infringing and legal use?
Almost every word is trademarked in the US Trademark Office, yet we have not stopped speaking yet ... :-)... or naming our children, organizations, groups and small businesses.. or criticizing corporations that need it, brands that harm people, and corporate practices that abuse them... Are such rights embodied in the Table? Guidance welcome!
Best, Kathy (Kleiman)
On 6/1/2016 4:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
Hi,
While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights. It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective.
Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue. We saw that division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed purposes. There are those, like me, who thought that of course they could do that. There those who argue that this is the egregious cultural theft. I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR based rights perspective. Would be good to getndle on it since it is a persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP.
avri
On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
<<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>> */
Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and succinctly. Tx you and yes!
Kathy
On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights. But on the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
/*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table? Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hi, I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even better. As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies?
Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re ICANN policies and related history: Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’ element involved when registering one. So if it is already registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark does not supersede the original registration?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name?
This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access to domain names for their children or using their last name’, right?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)?
I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands, to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’ etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use. regards Bastiaan
Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and cultural protection. However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes. And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well. Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an important claim to be made. Regards, Pranesh On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi,
I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even better.
As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies?
Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re ICANN policies and related history:
Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’ element involved when registering one. So if it is already registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark does not supersede the original registration?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name?
This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access to domain names for their children or using their last name’, right?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)?
I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands, to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’ etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.
regards Bastiaan
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
-- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 sip:pranesh@ostel.co | xmpp:pranesh@cis-india.org https://twitter.com/pranesh Sent, using free software and open standards, from my phone: please excuse my terseness.
Hi all, The discussion seems to be converging. If we put 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', and 'Freedom of Expression' next to each other, we could have a converging theme (with lines from both rights). Could you make a suggestion what theme that could be? Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/02/2016 10:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and cultural protection.
However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes.
And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well.
Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an important claim to be made.
Regards, Pranesh
On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi,
I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even better.
As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies?
Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re ICANN policies and related history:
Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’ element involved when registering one. So if it is already registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark does not supersede the original registration?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name?
This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access to domain names for their children or using their last name’, right?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)?
I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands, to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’ etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.
regards Bastiaan
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
I went with:
free and fair use of domain names > the right
to use all words and names in domain names Will send you the last version of the graph later today. best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/03/2016 12:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi all,
The discussion seems to be converging. If we put 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', and 'Freedom of Expression' next to each other, we could have a converging theme (with lines from both rights). Could you make a suggestion what theme that could be?
Best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/02/2016 10:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and cultural protection.
However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes.
And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well.
Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an important claim to be made.
Regards, Pranesh
On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi,
I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even better.
As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies?
Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re ICANN policies and related history:
Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’ element involved when registering one. So if it is already registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark does not supersede the original registration?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name?
This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access to domain names for their children or using their last name’, right?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)?
I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands, to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’ etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.
regards Bastiaan
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Kathy raises an interesting point that touches on a right to the use of basic words. This is a topical issue and can result in persons owning basic words to the exclusion of others. If this issue can be defined under the rubric of a fundamental right as per the UDHR then it should be included if possible for further discussion. regards Karel Douglas On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:
I went with:
free and fair use of domain names > the right
to use all words and names in domain names
Will send you the last version of the graph later today.
best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/03/2016 12:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Hi all,
The discussion seems to be converging. If we put 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', and 'Freedom of Expression' next to each other, we could have a converging theme (with lines from both rights). Could you make a suggestion what theme that could be?
Best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/02/2016 10:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and cultural protection.
However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes.
And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well.
Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an important claim to be made.
Regards, Pranesh
On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi,
I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even better.
As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the basic words used to name their current and future products, services and companies?
Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re ICANN policies and related history:
Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’ element involved when registering one. So if it is already registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark does not supersede the original registration?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would individuals have to domain names for their children or using their last name?
This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access to domain names for their children or using their last name’, right?
- Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would and noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and legally use the brand name of the company)?
I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands, to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’ etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.
regards Bastiaan
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
_______________________________________________ cc-humanrights mailing list cc-humanrights@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
Some typos, ideas and suggestions for the graph: 1. 'Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs' (change 'is' to 'in') 2. 'Rights Protection Mechanicsm in all gTLDs (Copyright)' (change 'is' to 'in' and add (Copyright)) 3. Remove ' ' around: this is a preliminary scoping, pending full Human Rights Impact Assessment 4. Remove ' ' around: Scoping the relation between ICANN and Human Rights 5. Add at left bottom: This illustration has been produce by the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights 6. Add a creative commons logo 7 Add under 'Freedom of Expression' > Free and fair use of domain names
Dictionary words in the DNS not protected through trademarks
Happy to discuss! Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/01/2016 06:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find a new version of the vizualization of ICANN and Human Rights based on all your great inputs.
The fact that this draft got several really good discussions going here gives me high hopes for what this can do outside of this mailinglist!
Please comment again to make it even better!
Cheers,
Niels
PS Avri, it would be really great if you have the time to propose text for the AGB points you made.
One more: 8. 'Economic and Social Rights' should be 'Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 On 06/02/2016 08:29 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Some typos, ideas and suggestions for the graph:
1. 'Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs' (change 'is' to 'in')
2. 'Rights Protection Mechanicsm in all gTLDs (Copyright)' (change 'is' to 'in' and add (Copyright))
3. Remove ' ' around: this is a preliminary scoping, pending full Human Rights Impact Assessment
4. Remove ' ' around: Scoping the relation between ICANN and Human Rights
5. Add at left bottom: This illustration has been produce by the Cross Community Working Party on ICANNs Corporate and Social Responsibility to Respect Human Rights
6. Add a creative commons logo
7 Add under 'Freedom of Expression' > Free and fair use of domain names
Dictionary words in the DNS not protected through trademarks
Happy to discuss!
Best,
Niels
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 www.article19.org
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
On 06/01/2016 06:16 PM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
Dear all,
Please find a new version of the vizualization of ICANN and Human Rights based on all your great inputs.
The fact that this draft got several really good discussions going here gives me high hopes for what this can do outside of this mailinglist!
Please comment again to make it even better!
Cheers,
Niels
PS Avri, it would be really great if you have the time to propose text for the AGB points you made.
participants (7)
-
avri doria -
avri doria -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Karel Douglas -
Kathy Kleiman -
Niels ten Oever -
Pranesh Prakash