Only option 1. DeeDee On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Andrew and Ron both make some good points. What we need to ask here is: > > Why should ICANN have responsibility for this issue? Certainly it seems > unlikely that ICANN should have *sole* responsibility, if any. > > Also, strategies attempting to use TM infringement as the lever to enforce > fraud seem mismatched: outright fraud is only a small part of TM law, and > thus a narrower "hammer" ought to be devised for this narrow "nail" which > I'd expect everyone would agree should be addressed *somehow* (nobody wants > there to be rampant fraud with regard to charity fundraising -- I think we > can all agree on that much). > > I think it's up to those who think ICANN in particular should ride to the > rescue here to have the burden of proof to demonstrate why that is the > case, with the default being that ICANN should not take charge of this. > They need to demonstrate why charity fundraising fraud "breaks the DNS" per > se and why existing law enforcement is somehow not up to the task of > addressing such instances without ICANN taking over some substantial law > enforcement authority. > > For ICANN to assist law enforcement narrowly in legitimate goals is one > thing, but taking over law enforcement with potentially broad reach is > quite another. Why exactly is it specifically ICANN's duty to fix this? > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > > > > At 1:21 AM -0400 7/23/12, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >I don't know how welcome it is, but there has been some discussion of the > >issue at ALAC. > > > >(What follows is my own interpretation of the at-large PoV; others' > >mileage may vary.) > > > >Until recently there was widespread agreement with keeping the status quo. > >But the stance has of late become a little more nuanced. > > > >We have absolutely no sympathy for the IOC or its franchisees, or IGOs in > >general (that already have the elite ability to register in dot-int). But > >while we don't want to make any specific exemptions for the Red Cross, we > >feel there is a legitimate discussion to be had about attempts to spoof > >charities. > > > >There, are, unfortunately, real instances of domains created to > >deliberately confuse potential donors (especially domains quickly created > >in the aftermath of disasters), often by in part appropriating the names > >of known charities such as the Red Cross. There are many in At-Large who > >believe that the domain system has some responsibility to prevent such > >clear instances of abuse, which has the potential to expand significantly > >upon expansion of the TLD namespace. What is less clear is how to do this, > >but simply doing nothing does not appear to be a reasonable option. What > >is hoped for is a reasonably easy process to stop sites designed to > >commandeer charitable donations, in such a way that does not draw > >substantial funds or focus from the real charities' core objectives. > > > >This is more of a 2LD issue than a TLD one, but very real nonetheless. We > >would prefer to generalize it, since charities besides the Red Cross > >suffer from this kind of fraud. And we prefer to approach this from the > >PoV of safeguarding the trust and needs of donors and supporters as > >opposed to trademark and trademark-like "rights". However, a complete > >response of "do nothing, everything's OK" may indicate an ICANN that is > >insensitive to the public consequences of its policies, and indeed a > >mis-functioning (or at least imbalanced) MSM. > > > >- Evan > -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org