Hi George and All, Thanks for this excellent input! As noticed during our meeting today, there are a number of topics to work on. The WG should “at a minimum” consider: ·The differences between the UDRP and the URS; ·The relevance of existing protection mechanisms in the Applicant Guidebook for the New gTLD Program; ·The interplay between … this PDP and the forthcoming GNSO review of the UDRP, URS and other rights-protection mechanisms; ·The distinctions (if any) between IGOs and INGOs for purposes of this PDP; ·The potential need to distinguish between a legacy gTLD and a new gTLD launched under the New gTLD Program; ·The potential need to clarify whether the URS is a Consensus Policy binding on ICANN’s contracted parties; ·The need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes; and ·The relevance of specific legal protections under international legal instruments and various national laws for IGOs and certain INGOs (namely, the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee). ·Review the deliberations of the 2003 President’s Joint Working Group on the 2001 WIPO report as a possible starting point; ·Consider whether subsequent developments such as the introduction of the New gTLD Program and the URS may mean that prior ICANN community recommendations on IGO dispute resolution are no longer applicable; ·Examine whether or not similar justifications and amendments should apply to both the UDRP and URS, or if each procedure should be treated independently and/or differently; ·Reach out to existing ICANN dispute resolution service providers for the UDRP and URS as well as experienced UDRP panelists .. ·Determine what (if any) are the specific different considerations (including without limitation qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) that should apply to IGOs and INGOs; ·Conduct research on applicable international law regarding special privileges and immunities for IGOs ·Conduct research on the extent to which IGOs and INGOs already have trademarks and might be covered, in whole or in part, by existing UDRP and URS proceedings; ·Conduct research on the number and list of IGOs currently protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property; ·Conduct research on the number and list of INGOs included on the ECOSOC list in consultative status; ·Consider whether or not there may be practicable alternatives, other than amending the UDRP and URS, that can nonetheless provide adequate curative rights protections for IGOs and INGOs, such as the development of a specific, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure modeled on the UDRP and URS, and applicable only to IGOs and/or INGOs; ·Consider a very clear definition of the mission of the IGOs, its scope of operations and the regions and countries in which it operates; the goal here being to provide a context for the IGO or INGO similar to the scope and terms of a trademark with its International Class and clear description of goods and services; ·Consider recommendations that incorporate fundamental principles of fair use, acknowledge free speech and freedom of expression, and balance the rights of all to use generic words and other terms and acronyms in non-confusing ways; and ·Bear in mind that any recommendations relating to the UDRP and URS … may be subject to further review under the GNSO’s forthcoming PDP to review all the rights protection mechanisms … Some of these should be rather easy to clarify/list, etc so that we then can proceed with the more difficult parts. I suggest that we initially identify those topics that are lists/reasearch/identification, in order to give us a good base for our work on the other topics. If you have special experience and/or contacts related to one or more of the points above, please step forward and let us know. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 11 augusti 2014, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> skrev:
Hi folks,
Just to followup on our conference call, it might be useful if we had access to a database of IGOs and INGOs, which we could then survey in order to obtain primary research data. This could then be used to help answer threshold questions (such as whether the data indicates that the scale of any domain name abuse is sufficient to warrant changes to existing curative RPMs, etc).
One link I had posted in the chat room was for:
which is a database of over 66,000 IGOs and INGOs. However, it costs $3,030/yr for an annual subscription (and it's unclear whether that database can be shared amongst multiple members of the working group).
WIPO itself maintains a public Article 6ter database at:
<http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/6ter/>
(simply clicking "Search" without putting any data into the fields yields 3027 records)
Similarly, doing a search at the USPTO, via:
<http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp>
(and then click Trademark Search, Basic Word Mark Search (New User), and then perform a search of "6ter" with a field of "ALL") provides a list of 735 such marks registered in the USA.
TMView is another tool for researching marks in many countries, see:
<https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome.html> Canada's TM database is searchable via:
Of course, it is insufficient to simply survey IGOs and INGOs. We should also be reaching out to domain name registrants, to get their input/data on relevant questions (e.g. have they been accused of cybersquatting, have they received C&Ds, UDRPs, URS proceedings, lawsuits, whether those accusations had merit, how they used their short domain names, legal expenditures, etc.).
There are tools to extract the contact data from the public WHOIS records on a bulk basis to form a data set, although I don't use them myself (as a domain name registrant, I regularly receive bulk mailings from others, though, who've obtained the contact info via WHOIS).
There are tools like UDRPSearch.com to find historical UDRP cases involving IGOs, INGOs, and registrants of short acronyms, etc. PACER exists to find US court cases, although perhaps some of the law firms participating in this working group (or ICANN itself) have access to superior paid tools, like Westlaw, Lexis Nexis, etc. CanLII.org is a public database of Canadian court cases.
I'm guessing most folks here are already familiar with sites like DomainTools.com or ZFBot.com to do research on domain names matching various strings.
The OpenCorporates site maintains an index of corporations in numerous jurisdictions, see:
Perhaps others have ideas on additional sources of data that might be helpful to this working group.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>