Berry
Cobb:Welcome to the 20 FEB 2013 IGO-INGO
Conference call.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):HI Berry and Nathalie - I will
be absent for a few minutes but should re-join
shortly
Nathalie
Peregrine:Noted Ricardo.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):back
Kiran
Malancharuvil:Good afternoon, Jim Bikoff,
David Heasley and myself on the call as well
as in chat.
Kiran
Malancharuvil:Thanks!
Nathalie
Peregrine:Thank you Kiran, noted!
Alan
Greenberg:Waiting to get on...
Nathalie
Peregrine:Mary Wong has joined the AC room
Alan
Greenberg:on now
Mary Wong:Me
too (sorry, was waiting for the operator for a
while)
Avri
Doria:misserd it was on mute. ok, another
time.
Nathalie
Peregrine:Stephane Hankins has joined the call
Alan
Greenberg:Thomas, you are saying General
Council/Counsel in stead of GNSO Council.
Nathalie
Peregrine:Debra Hughes has joined the call
Nathalie
Peregrine:Iliya Bazlyankov sends apologies for
this call
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):@Alan - it's
against the law to cybersquat using someone
else's words/marks.
Berry Cobb:http://www.wto.com
is the biggest example of "claiming to be" or
confusing as to whether the page is that of
WTO or not.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Kiran here.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):Also, regarding
Avri's comment, just because an organization
controls a number of domain names acros
multiple TLDs doesn't mean we are not harmed
by that. The need for defensive registration
is a harm.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Exactly Kiran.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):+1 to IOC's remarks above
Avri Doria:I
understand that some feel the existsnce of
Harm is not a necessary condition. Some on
the other hand do beleive it is a necessary
condition. We have yet to detemrine that it
is a violation of law, or to what degree it
is a violation of law. Exactly what is the
violation of law: the full name, an
infixx/suffix/prefix usage, a typo based
defintion? Are they all violations of law?
If so please someone shows us this law and the
specifics that support these broad
interpretations.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We have
provided a lot of guidance on these questions,
but are waiting for the GC to answer the
questions as no one seems to take the
organizations' word for it. Incidentally, it
is not just that we don't "believe" that a
showing of actual harm is a necessary
condition, but rather that the law does not
require such a showing.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):+1 Ricardo
Debra Hughes:I
encourage the group to consider that this
chart doesn't capture domain names that were
obtained from third parties or subject to
previous enforcement action; also the harm
ifor RCRC is the allocation of resources
(personal/financial) to manage abuses that
should not have been allows under the GC in
the first instance.
Avri Doria:The
law may not require it in some specific case
or uses. And it may not require it for some
IGO/INGO etc... Are you claiming that the Law
exempts the necessary showing of harm in ICANN
policy for all usages and all IGO/INGO?
Avri
Doria:Whatever Law protects, the law
protects. For the rest policy must determine
what is or is not necessary for special
protection. Harm may be a necessary element
for policy.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):I would refer
you back to the laws cited by each individual
organization in question to answer your
questions.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Mary
Avri Doria:For
anyting that is law determined, the local law
must be enforced on the Registry or
Registrar. Policy is only required for those
things not covered by law, or the same law, in
localities for which there is a law.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):What are we
asking for that is not covered by law? That
question can only be answered to the group's
satisfaction by the GC.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):and even then,
maybe not to the group's satisfaction.
Avri Doria:Ok,
so no one is asking for anyting not coverd by
Law?
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:I disagree.
Avri Doria:so
why is this not a legal case?
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):No one? I
believe I've made it clear (at your request)
that I only represent the IOC.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We have cited
the law for every position that we take.
Speaking ONLY for the IOC.
Avri Doria:so
the issue is relevant to the policy group. i
thought yu were maintaing that the issue was
not important becasue of the law.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):you have
misunderstood.
Avri Doria:I
beleive any Registry or Registra that is
beaking their national law vis a vis IOC
should be taken to court. We are not about
the nefocement of law, that is for the courts.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):that is an
interesting view, thanks for sharing it.
Nathalie
Peregrine:Sam Paltridge has joined the AC room
Avri
Doria:Kieren, you are quite welcome. ICANN is
not LEA, it is a policy organization that
attempts to provide a refulatory function
based on a multistakeholder process of policy
development.
Avri
Doria:s/refulatory/regulatory/
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):(*Kiran) -
ICANN is required to follow applicable laws.
Avri
Doria:Kieran, and I am sure they will once
those laws have been cleary shown. Of course,
the Registrars and Registries are in different
jurisdictions, so there is alwasy a question
of which law,, and which interpretation of the
law must be followed.
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):(*Kiran - no
"e") - looking forward to the GC response.
Avri
Doria:apologies for my spelling.
Avri
Doria:Kiran, I look forward to it as well.
Avri Doria:I've
got my bets down on a verdict of 'no
applicable law determining the illegality of
the use of a string in a domain name." but i
am not a lawyer and I often lose my bets.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Support Mary's discussion
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):Fully support the
comments just made by Ricardo - indeed
important that we continue to bear in mind in
our deliberations that IGOs are a distinct and
limited category of entity with names and
acronymsprotected under internatinal law- and
the quantum of the discussions fromsome years
agao have been materailly impacted by ICANNs
decision to massively expand the DNS, which
adds weight to the need to revisit ICANN
decisions of past years.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):fruit salad
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:If some organizations can
rely on per se reservation of thier names on
the basis of existing legal protections, then
there is no need for criteria for them. We
can spend our time discussing criteria for
other IOs.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):fully agree with claudia
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):+1 Claudia
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):...and again very with
the spirit of the intervention just made by
ricardo
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):wrong, Alan
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):GAC proposal is for
criteria and list
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):it is not supposed to be a
closed list, it's based on specific objective
criteria
Avri Doria:I
actually beleive that is ok to come up with a
list that is broader than the GAC's, if that
is the right thing to do. And if we are
talking about things like clearing houses,
challenges and dispute resolution, i think it
may even be possible.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):right, it may need to be
reviewed from time to tim - and in particular,
criteria based on .int eligibility criteria +
IGO funds and programs plus a list of a number
IGOs which have been identified as meeting
those criteria
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):names AND acronyms
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):For IGOS in the GAC, IGO
name plus acronymn
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):Under the Paris
convention, it is the name and acronymn which
the IGO has communicated to the 6ter list
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:The name should be protected
in law, e.g., under trademark law or other
national statutes.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):Just as an analagous
example, protections already granted under the
reserve list for UN Member countries, are
protected in the UN languages
wolfgang:what
do you do if two lorgs have the same acronym:
IOC is International Olympic Committeee ande
the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):correct, David
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):neither can be registered
by third parties
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):@Wolfgang - I
see that you have made this argument and given
this example many many times in the past.
Again, to be crystal clear, the IOC does not
seek protection for acronyms. Thanks.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Mary1
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):anyway, possibiliy for
cooexistence should not of itself be a reason
not to preclude third party registration of
domains that would be an exact match of an IGO
name or acronymn
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):in practice, we are
talking here about a pool of hundreds of
domain names that could correspond in this
exact way, as against the virtually limited
number out there , especially in an expanded
DNS
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):the Olympic Charter
specifically mentions that the IOC is an
international, non-governmental organization
whose members are NATURAL persons
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:Greg, ISO (the International
Organization for Standardization) is an INGO,
and one of the some 140 NGOs with General
Consultative Status with the UN ECOSOC
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:I believe the IEC is also a
formal member of the group.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):more impirtant to get it
right, than get it early!
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):absolutely
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):anybody = third parties
Mary Wong:A
large majority of NCUC members would oppose
blocking.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):absolutely
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):my "absolutely" was to David's
remark
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):what I said was "anybody=third
parties"
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):We agree with
that proposal, Thomas
wolfgang:I
oppose blocking as well
Mason
Cole:oppose blocking
Avri Doria:i
oppose all blocking.
Lanre Ajayi:I
also oppose blocking
Avri
Doria:whereas i support curative processes.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):no curative processes for UPU
(and other IGOs)
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):exact matches based on
blocking third party registration of IGO names
and acronmyns other than with IGO consent
would work - IGO consent to allow for
potential cases of legitimate use
Avri Doria:i
also suppor a recommendaion that induces
specific regisries o voluntarily block. i
would recommend ha regisries consider
voluntary blocking.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):+1 David
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):we need to bear in mind
we are talking of blocking tghe smallest
handful of domain names potentially availble
in the DNS overall
Mason Cole:need
to ring off -- thanks everyone
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):comparable in some ways
to country names and territories
Avri
Doria:there is blocking and there are
exclusive reservations.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):prevention against sthird
party registration may be better than blcoking
- IGOs mayh also want to use their own names
or acronmys
Mary
Wong:@David, it would have to be that type of
justification (and of that magnitude/level) to
justify any form of blocking.
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):exactly Thomas
Mary Wong:+1 to
Claudia's suggestion - building on Avri's
point on voluntary blocks by registries, it
could be a good balance of interests here.
Claudia
MacMaster Tamarit:.NGO would be one example
would be one TLD where INGOs would be
particularly wary.
Mary
Wong:@Claudia, that's what I was thinking too.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):I have to leave in a couple of
mins, thanks to all
wolfgang:I have
to leave in five minutes.
wolfgang:w
Kiran
Malancharuvil/Jim Bikoff (IOC):Thanks.
Ricardo
Guilherme (UPU):thank you Thomas
Mary
Wong:Thanks, as always, Thomas and everyone!
David
Roache-Turner (WIPO):thanks all
Nathalie
Peregrine:thank you!