[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
While I agree with
the sentiment that the IRC has a marginally better claim to
"protection" than the IOC, I oppose special protection for
both.
The existing rules
are supposed to provide a level and fair playing field for
all domain name registrants. To the extent that they don't,
modifications to the rules should be made to benefit all
registrants - not an especially well connected few.
The primary problem
that I hear from these two is the expense of having to
defend their name(s) in multiple name spaces against fraud.
I have limited sympathy. As an individual, I do not have an
institutional law department. I don't have the
infrastructure to raise funds from a generous public to
consult with an attorney for one hour - much less to have
representation on K street in DC. These organizations do.
Certainly they (and I) would prefer that the funds they
raise for their worthy causes go to directly support their
work - not to fight (potential and real) fraud committed in
their name, trademark infringement and other criminal and/or
unsavory acts.
But I have the same risks (save
trademark, which I can't get since I'm not engaged in
commerce.) As do many other worthy non-commercial
enterprises. And many commercial enterprises - most of
which have smaller revenues than either the IOC or the IRC.
Like the 1-person barbershop owned by Henry Ford? (Of
course, not *the* Henry Ford...) Why should any of these
have to pay more to mitigate/defend against these risks than
these two?
Since most of the problems involve
criminal acts, and we routinely hear about how law
enforcement needs more access to private information and
more control over the DNS to protect us: shouldn't the
demand be for effective law enforcement for all? As for the
non-criminal problems (e.g. registering related names such
as help-<tomorrows-disaster>.org and
games-in-<tbd-city>-2038.com thru
games-in-<another-city>.4113.com) - why should these
two organizations be immunized from the predation of the
cybersquatters while the rest of us have to deal with them?
Why should equally valuable charities (e.g. United Way) have
higher costs? Why should individuals/small businesses?
If the system we have is insufficient
or too expensive to protect the rights of the small domain
name holder (which I suspect is, or will be the majority),
it needs to be fixed in a way that benefits them (us) as
well as the large institutions.
The IOC and the IRC would get a more
support and assistance from me (and I expect this community)
if they contributed to a reform effort that addressed the
problems of all domain name registrants, rather than this
proposal to carve out special exceptions for themselves and
leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Especially
since once they have their "special protection", I don't
see why they would use their resources to file amicus briefs
in our cases or otherwise significantly assist us...
Like any community, the internet works
best when we all work together.
Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
---------------------------------------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my
employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.
From: NCSG-Discuss
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Konstantinos
Komaitis
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 04:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] FW: Questions/Options for
Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level
Dear all,
As you know, a policy
group has been created to discuss the GAC¢s request for
special protection of the Olympic and Red Cross marks and
their variations. The group came up with a set of questions
and possible options that will be discussing in next week¢s
call. Please note that at this stage discussions are
focusing only at the top level and not the second.
Can I please ask for your
feedback on these possible recommendations? You all know
where I stand on this issue (especially with regards to the
OLYMPIC mark) and I am very annoyed that the Greek GAC rep
is not with me on this L
Anyway, the next call is
scheduled for next Wednesday and Jeff, chairing the group,
is asking for any comments by Sunday. Apologies for sending
this quite late.
Thanks
KK
All,
Thanks for the very productive session today during our
call. Given the feedback on the call, we have revised the
questions and options for protecting the IOC and Red
Cross/Red Crescent names at the top level. On the call, we
discussed a fifth option for Question 1 which included the
notion of a letter of non-objection from either the IOC/Red
Cross or a relevant governmental entity (See options 5(a)
and 5(b) below). It also occurred to me after the call that
there is a sixth option, which enable an appeal process
(like option 4) for entities that apply for strings that are
found to have string similarity, but are unable to secure a
letter of non-objection from the IOC/Red Cross or the
relevant governmental authority, but still nonetheless have
legitimate rights to the string. Options 6(a) and 6(b) may
be overkill, but I wanted to make sure all the options are
on the table.
As requested during the call, these
questions/options are being presented for your review and
discussion within your respective groups. Please provide
any comments and/or feedback you may have by Sunday, February 5th.
This will enable us to assimilate the responses prior to
our next call on February 8th. Thank you very
much in advance for your consideration and time.
Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red
Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round
GAC Proposal
At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic
and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in
the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those
terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration
during the String Similarity review. Right now, these terms
(in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings
Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String
Similarity Review.
·
Option 1: Recommend no
changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means
that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:
a) Are not considered “Reserved Names”
b) Applied for strings are not reviewed for
similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.
·
Option 2: Treat the
terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names”
under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that:
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone;
and
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String
Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to
those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string
that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will
not pass this review.
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String
Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
· Option 3: Treat the terms set
forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names”
meaning:
a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the
International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the
String Similarity review to determine whether they are
similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a
gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved
Name will not pass this review.
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String
Similarity Review, there is no appeal.
· Option 4a – Same as Option 2,
except there would be an appeal process for those
organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
“reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 4b – Same as Option 3,
except there would be an appeal process for those
organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
“modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 5a: Same as Option 3
except that the “modified reserve names” are available as
gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee,
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to
those entities receiving a letter of non-objection from the
International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement as applicable.
· Option 5b: Same as Option 5a but
also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection
from a relevant government.
· Option 6a: Same as Option 5a,
except that there would be an appeal process for those
entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the
“modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.
· Option 6b: Same as Option 5b,
except there would be an appeal process for those entities
that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified
reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.
Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question
1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the
chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional
languages?
a) Option 1: No, just the languages set
forth in the Applicant Guidebook
b) Option 2: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking
for protection in “multiple languages - all
translations of the listed names in languages used on the
Internet.”
c) Option 3: Extending protections to other
languages, but a subset of languages.
Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1
and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?
a) Option 1: Yes, it should apply in all
future rounds
b) Option 2: No, it should only apply to this
current round.
c) Option 3: It should apply in this current
round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should
evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons
learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent
rounds based on the results of the evaluation.
Jeffrey
J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice
President, Business Affairs
21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / [log in to unmask] / www.neustar.biz
The information contained in this e-mail
message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s)
named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the
original message.