On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree with Kathy.
> We do not want registries to be forced to pre-judge what is an infringement and what is not. This is the "intermediary responsibility" problem that can lead to powerful chilling effects.
>
And of course I also agree.
But this isn't going away. Won't it one day lead to a legal
challenge? So why not get a good legal review done and get it over
with.
Adam
> Of course, registries should be allowed to set their own policies. If they decide, "only customers of the .FOO corporation can register names under .FOO, that's fine. But registries that want to run an open-to-the-public name space should not be forced to carve out (or intimidated into carving out) special exemptions for private actors.
>
> Perhaps by suggesting an independent (and expensive) legal analysis Adam believes that the issue will be resolved. First, I doubt that it would, second, it just abdicates ICANN's own policy making responsibilities to someone else in effect.
>
> I believe that only option 1 is best; option 3 might be considered as a concession
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> How do Registrars and Registries protect second level names upfront and
>> prior to registration? That's been an issue since the beginning of time
>> even in the pre-ICANN universe.
>>
>> Network Solutions fought court battles to preserve a first-come, first-
>> serve registration policy in large part because no one can read someone
>> else's mind about what they think infringes -- infringement is only
>> judged after-the-fact. That's when there is context to help decided
>> whether there is a "likelihood of confusion," or "actual confusion."
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathy
>> :
>> > How about a variation of 5, contract with
>> >
>> > international law firm "to conduct a legal analysis to
>> > substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law
>> > and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to
>> > protect IOC and RCRC names by law."
>> >
>> > Not ICANN legal counsel. Tender for an international legal firm
>> > (consortium of legal scholars?) to conduct analysis (there's about
>> > $357m in the TLD moneybox)
>> >
>> > Adam
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 11:23 AM -0400 7/18/12, Avri Doria wrote:
>> >> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>
>> >>> From: Brian Peck <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>
>> >>> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] List of possible approaches for Red
>> >>> Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS
>> >>>
>> >>> Date: 18 July 2012 11:08:58 EDT
>> >>>
>> >>> To: "<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]"
>> >>> <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> List of possible approaches for Red Cross/IOC names in new gTLDS In
>> >>> response to the request during the last RC/IOC DT call, please find
>> >>> below a list of possible approaches that have been proposed to date
>> >>> for moving forward in responding to the GAC proposal to protect the
>> >>> RCRC and IOC names at the second level in new gTLDS:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Maintain the status quo and not provide any new special
>> >>> protections for the RCRC/IOC names (i.e., no changes to the current
>> >>> schedule of second-level reserved names in the new gTLD Registry
>> >>> Agreement).
>> >>> 2. Develop recommendations to implement the GAC proposal such as
>> >>> extending protection to all or a subset of RCRC names only, all or a
>> >>> subset of IOC names only or, to both sets of each organizationıs
>> names.
>> >>> 3. Consider the proposal to not provide any new protections now
>> >>> and wait to see if any additional protections may be necessary after
>> >>> the delegation of the first round new gTLD strings and/or consider
>> >>> lowering costs for each organization to utilize RPMs ( i.e., Thomas
>> >>> Rickertıs proposal)
>> >>> 4. Consider possible additional protections for the RCRC/IOC as
>> >>> part of a broader PDP on the protection of names for international
>> >>> organizations
>> >>> 5. Ask ICANN General Counselıs office to conduct a legal analysis
>> >>> to substantiate/verify whether there is clear evidence of treaty law
>> >>> and/or statutes that would require registries and registrars to
>> >>> protect IOC and RCRC names by law.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Please let us know if you have any questions or need anything
>> >>> further at this time. Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best Regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Brian
>> >>>
>> >>> Brian Peck
>> >>> Policy Director
>> >>> ICANN
|
