Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations
ICANN Staff has released an Issues Report pertaining to dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations --http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03586.html The ALAC has warranted that it would "submit a more detailed analysis of the recommendations if and when WIPO's recommendations are subject to policy-development processes" -- see http://www.icann.org/correspondence/bertola-to-touton-12may03.htm We are on the verge of PDP commencement (it requires only a majority vote in the GNSO Council of members present). As a great many North American commercial and non-commercial institutions may be implicated in the upcoming policy process (for example, the web address for FAO Schwarz, the 140-year old toy retailer -- fao.com -- may be found to be "confusing" to those looking for the Food and Agriculture Organization IGO), I would ask NARALO members to weigh in on the topic in a diligent manner to protect the North American interests that may be placed at risk. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
As a great many North American commercial and non-commercial institutions may be implicated in the upcoming policy process (for example, the web address for FAO Schwarz, the 140-year old toy retailer -- fao.com -- may be found to be "confusing" to those looking for the Food and Agriculture Organization IGO), I would ask NARALO members to weigh in on the topic in a diligent manner to protect the North American interests that may be placed at risk.
How are North American interests different from those in other regions in this regard? I guess much depends on whether one considers .com, .org and .net to be American by context or simply by ownership. In any case, the example above seems pointless in two contexts: 1) The Food and Agriculture Organization, by definition(!), is not even appropriate for the .com TLD (If the changes help to get commercial squatters out of .org and ,net, count me in. There is no reason that mcdonalds.org should be the diety-entitled property of a burger chain if an NPO or NGO or IGO of the same name exists. Conversely, there is no reason that an IGO should be competing/confusing in the namespace used by commercial entities.) 2) There are multiple applications of pretty well every acronym of four letters or less, so whomever gets it would be accused of "confusion". Any legitimate company with the initials "FAO" is no more entitled to the three-lettered domain than anyone else. Of course, WIPO may see things differently. ;-) - Evan
Evan, The first thing that we need to do is to consider the viewpoint of those arguing for enhanced protection to determine whether (1) such protections are warranted and (2) whether such protections will impact third parties unjustifiably. For example, consider the following perspective drawn from the WIPO2 documents: A). "The World Health Organization (WHO) stated: WHO's attention has been drawn to the following examples of the registration and use of its name in the DNS: worldhealthorganization.com, worldhealthorganization.org, healthwho.com, and oms.org. In WHO's opinion, the registration and use of the Organization's name and acronym in the first three examples is parasitical and misleading, may easily give rise to confusion as to the source of the information provided by the domain name holder and could potentially adversely reflect on WHO (i.e. bearing in mind that these domain names are used to sell commercial, health-related products and/or to provide health-related information to the public and health care professionals). The fourth example relates to an organization (the Oklahoma Metaphysical Society) which has the same acronym as WHO (i.e. in French "OMS")." B). The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) stated: The Commission is aware of two domain names that, although not in bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair, may create confusion: (I) http://www.clw.org/coalition/ctbindex.htm This site, called 'Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Site', was established by a non-governmental organization, the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers. The word 'ctbindex' contains the letters 'ctb' referring to the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the treaty establishing the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty Organization, and it is possible that the impression may be created that the site contains official information on the CTBT. This site was thus mistakenly cited in an article in CNN-online instead of the official web site of the organization (www.ctbto.org). (2) http://www.ctbtcommission.org This site was established as the site of the Independent Commission on the Verifiability of the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The funding for the project was received from various private sources and the governments of Germany and the United Kingdom, with the secretariat of the commission being provided by a non-governmental organization, the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC). It is possible that the domain name 'ctbtcommission' may be confused as that of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission, although upon opening the site, it is clear that it is not the organization' s official site." One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in all of the official UN languages) at the expense of registration opportunities for others. Further, it appears that they also seek a dispute resolution process that will deny others the opportunity for judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek to safeguard the own immunity from national jurisdiction). The vast bulk of registrations that potentially conflict with IGO acronyms are registered by North American interests that have managed to secure a good number of 3, 4, or 5 letter strings. While the issue indeed is global, should the IGOs succeed in obtaining enhanced protections there is a strong risk that North American interests will be the ones most impacted by such a development. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
See below: On 16 Jun 2007, at 23:15, Danny Younger wrote:
One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in all of the official UN languages) at the expense of registration opportunities for others. Further, it appears that they also seek a dispute resolution process that will deny others the opportunity for judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek to safeguard the own immunity from national jurisdiction).
A couple of points here: 1) IGOs are by treaty protected from action in national courts. Whether or not you think that's right, that is the current state of international law. 2) Per the USG for Legal Affairs' letter to ICANN, they do understand that disputes about domain names involving IGO names can be subject to a review that is not based upon court action in national courts.
The vast bulk of registrations that potentially conflict with IGO acronyms are registered by North American interests that have managed to secure a good number of 3, 4, or 5 letter strings. While the issue indeed is global, should the IGOs succeed in obtaining enhanced protections there is a strong risk that North American interests will be the ones most impacted by such a development.
The protection that they have stated that they seek is that protection which they see as congruent with international law and the PCT Article 6ter.
I think additional exclusions are as illegitimate as I thought them in 2003. <http://does-not-exist.org/mail-archives/council/msg00003.html> --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
See below:
On 16 Jun 2007, at 23:15, Danny Younger wrote:
One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in all of the official UN languages) at the expense of registration opportunities for others. Further, it appears that they also seek a dispute resolution process that will deny others the opportunity for judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek to safeguard the own immunity from national jurisdiction).
A couple of points here:
1) IGOs are by treaty protected from action in national courts. Whether or not you think that's right, that is the current state of international law.
2) Per the USG for Legal Affairs' letter to ICANN, they do understand that disputes about domain names involving IGO names can be subject to a review that is not based upon court action in national courts.
The vast bulk of registrations that potentially conflict with IGO acronyms are registered by North American interests that have managed to secure a good number of 3, 4, or 5 letter strings. While the issue indeed is global, should the IGOs succeed in obtaining enhanced protections there is a strong risk that North American interests will be the ones most impacted by such a development.
The protection that they have stated that they seek is that protection which they see as congruent with international law and the PCT Article 6ter.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy, since you were (I think?) around at the time ALAC put forward that submission, the USG for Legal Affairs in concert with the heads of legal affairs at the other UN agencies had yet to put out the view expressed at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/ letter.pdf. Have you taken that into account in your statement below - and if so, do you have references to contrary viewpoints which would support that view? I'm not seeking here to challenge the validity of your view - the point I'm trying to make is that if the ALAC wishes to put forward the same position as it did in 2003 - since there has not yet been a discussion of this, I do not assume that it will automatically do so - it will be asked "but what about the letter from the USG of Legal Affairs at the UN?" and it seems to me that there should be a convincing answer to why the ALAC believes that he is wrong in his analysis. On 17 Jun 2007, at 09:31, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think additional exclusions are as illegitimate as I thought them in 2003. <http://does-not-exist.org/mail-archives/council/msg00003.html>
--Wendy
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
See below:
On 16 Jun 2007, at 23:15, Danny Younger wrote:
One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in all of the official UN languages) at the expense of registration opportunities for others. Further, it appears that they also seek a dispute resolution process that will deny others the opportunity for judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek to safeguard the own immunity from national jurisdiction).
A couple of points here:
1) IGOs are by treaty protected from action in national courts. Whether or not you think that's right, that is the current state of international law.
2) Per the USG for Legal Affairs' letter to ICANN, they do understand that disputes about domain names involving IGO names can be subject to a review that is not based upon court action in national courts.
The vast bulk of registrations that potentially conflict with IGO acronyms are registered by North American interests that have managed to secure a good number of 3, 4, or 5 letter strings. While the issue indeed is global, should the IGOs succeed in obtaining enhanced protections there is a strong risk that North American interests will be the ones most impacted by such a development.
The protection that they have stated that they seek is that protection which they see as congruent with international law and the PCT Article 6ter.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Nick, comments follow your text: A couple of points here: 1) IGOs are by treaty protected from action in national courts. Whether or not you think that's right, that is the current state of international law. (Response) -- The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations allows for the waiver of immunity. In particular, please see the sections positing a duty to waive immunity in any case where immunity would impede the course of justice. 2) Per the USG for Legal Affairs' letter to ICANN, they do understand that disputes about domain names involving IGO names can be subject to a review that is not based upon court action in national courts. (Response) -- The non-IGO respondant has a right to judicial review in all actions potentially involving a "taking". The protection that they have stated that they seek is that protection which they see as congruent with international law and the PCT Article 6ter. (Response) Even ICANN's own IPC doesn't see such congruence, and in fact has called for ICANN to ask WIPO "to provide a substantive opinion to confirm the applicability of of Article 6ter in non-trademark related areas" (as 6ter deals "solely with the registration of IGO names and acronyms as trademarks"). see http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/2006-Jan31_IPC%20Response%20to%20New%20gT... ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&c...
[excerpt] "The lack of progress towards the deployment of DNSSEC is undermining the stability and security of the internet. Operators and implementers are compelled to adopt adhoc, short-term solutions which will create long-term problems. The RIPE community urges ICANN to speed up and improve its efforts to get the root zone signed." http://www.icann.org/correspondence/pawlik-to-cerf-07jun12.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
Impact on North American Business: The ICANN Staff Issues Report states: "The protection of IGO names and abbreviations may be addressed in the new gTLD process, with an objections-based approach for strings at the top-level...", and "If developed by staff for new gTLDs, a follow-up PDP would be necessary to apply the DRP to existing gTLDs." One issue is how existing gTLDs would be impacted at the top level (and how such an impact would affect North American business). The issue may be clarified somewhat by recourse to WIPO Circular 0645 which details protected abbreviations for the IGO we know as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). This IGO has also deemed it necessary to protect their abbreviation in other official UN languages including one which renders their name as BANK FÜR INTERNATIONALEN ZAHLUNGSAUSGLEICH. The abbreviation they accordingly seek to protect is BIZ (which also happens to be an existing gTLD operated by NeuLevel, a North American registry operation). Applying a DRP to existing top level domains would certainly pose a challenge as a conflict already exists between an ICANN gTLD and an abbreviation protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention (that seeks additional enhanced protections). ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
Danny Younger wrote:
The first thing that we need to do is to consider the viewpoint of those arguing for enhanced protection to determine whether (1) such protections are warranted and (2) whether such protections will impact third parties unjustifiably.
So much of this is a red herring. First, IGO issues -- since the are not commercial entites -- should have ZERO effect on .com. Any interest of IGOs in .com domains is more vanity than practicality. Second, IGOs do not have greater entitlement to acronyms than anywhere else. IIRC, in Canada you can't generally trademark acronyms (in an enfirceable manner) because so many conflicting interests can share the same acronym. There is no no magical right for any body, even the United Nations, to acronym-based domains if someone else got them first. Thirdly, don't we have the .int TLD to handle major pan-national NGOs? Since that TLD is closed to commercial and single-country entities, any IGO's placement there will be quite unambiguous (and the availability of acronym is certainly greater) compared to .com or .org. If IGOs insist in being in .com (or eliminating "confusion") if valid .int possibilities exist, then this is to me a matter of vanity and not entitlement or protection. To take your example of FAO Schwartz to an even more absurd example, does the World Bank have more rights to wb.com than Warner Brothers?
A). "The World Health Organization (WHO) stated: WHO's attention has been drawn to the following examples of the registration and use of its name in the DNS: worldhealthorganization.com, worldhealthorganization.org, healthwho.com, and oms.org. The first one is borderline -- the name is the same, but as a .com this is a commercial body so it can't be the _real_ WHO.
The second is the more problematic, and arguably is parasitic. The third could wasily be a legitimate commercial health entity -- or a website _about_ the WHO but not by them.
The fourth example relates to an organization (the Oklahoma Metaphysical Society) which has the same acronym as WHO (i.e. in French "OMS")."
Not anymore. It goes to the WHO. But I would have easily defended the Oklahomans' right to the domain. The group already has www.who.int and www.oms.int -- these are the legitimate, unambiguous, and sensible domains for the org. Complaining about anything else is censorship or vanity (or both).
One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in all of the official UN languages) at the expense of registration opportunities for others. Further, it appears that they also seek a dispute resolution process that will deny others the opportunity for judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek to safeguard the own immunity from national jurisdiction).
Again, that's what .int is explicitly designed to accommodate. - Evan
How are North American interests different from those in other regions in this regard? I guess much depends on whether one considers .com, .org and .net to be American by context or simply by ownership.
Due to the peculiar history of the .US domain which until recently required all registrations to include a city and state in the name, most registrants in the U.S. have used .COM, .ORG, and .NET rather than .US. I don't think there's any other country where this happened.
(If the changes help to get commercial squatters out of .org and ,net, count me in.
No chance, all the rules about who can register in .com, .org. and .net were repealed years ago.
Of course, WIPO may see things differently. ;-)
Indeed. They insist on claiming that domain names and trademarks are the same thing. R's, John
John L ha scritto:
How are North American interests different from those in other regions in this regard? I guess much depends on whether one considers .com, .org and .net to be American by context or simply by ownership.
Due to the peculiar history of the .US domain which until recently required all registrations to include a city and state in the name, most registrants in the U.S. have used .COM, .ORG, and .NET rather than .US. I don't think there's any other country where this happened.
Just a note from the rest of the world: actually, this depends on local ccTLD policies. In Italy, for example, before 1999 individuals weren't allowed to get a .it, and anyone else could have no more than one; so almost everyone used to get com/net/org domains instead. Even today, as registering a .it involves signing a piece of paper and sending it by fax, and it takes more time and effort than a couple of clicks on Godaddy, many new registrations from Italy are in gTLDs. In other countries it's even worse - still today, some countries have very restrictive rules, while others ask you up to $150 per year for a registration in a ccTLD. In all these cases, people tend to use gTLDs instead. However, it is true that most 3- and 4-letter names in gTLDs are registered by North Americans, because the interest in the Internet grew there before anywhere else, so Americans got them before anyone else. (Perhaps we could ask Verisign and PIR for statistics of the geographical distribution of registrations, I'm sure they have them.) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
participants (6)
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
John L -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer