I echo Evan’s sentiments.  I have been on the enforcement end of this issue and it is a public threat with regard to fraud -- especially in times of natural disaster.  Consumers are bilked out of millions of dollars from very clever squatters.  Denying some extra measures of protection do not necessarily help civil society when the opportunities for fraud grow exponentially.    I think that having a reasoned, balanced approach makes sense.   Separating IOC from RC also makes sense because they are administered differently and there is a different level of public interest involved.  While NCSG may disagree with the current proposals for protection of IGO’s and NGO’s, I think that there is room for meaningful compromise that achieves the balance between consumer protection and concerns about overreaching on intellectual property rights and inhibiting free speech.

 

I think that it is worthwhile to note that trademark rights evolved from concepts related to consumer protection.    I will be the first to admit that brand owners frequently lose sight of that very important fact and that there is IP overreach.  However, if we go back to the root of the issue  and acknowledge that trademark rights were implemented to protect consumers from fraud and confusion then we are serving the public interest.   I believe that finding the right balance of consumer protection and free speech is a core value of what are trying to achieve on behalf of civil society and the name space.

 

Lori

 

 

Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel
1703 North Beauregard Street

Alexandria, VA  22311-1714

P 703-575-5678 · [log in to unmask]
Description: cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0

 

 

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby

 

For what it's worth....

 

There are people on ALAC who have seen explicit attempts by fraudsters to exploit red-cross-name domains to solicit fake charitable funds from unsuspecting people. Not only is there no problem within At-Large with doing "backflips" for the Red Cross, arguably protection of its names will lead to less *actual* end-user harm than most potential infringements in the commercial world.

 

There was IMO substantial progress and good news from the Board action, in that it separated protection for the Red Cross and International Olympic Committee, two cases which the GAC has repeatedly lumped together. The IOC was extremely aggressive in its participation in the Working Group formed to address the issue. The ALAC had fought hard to de-link the RC and IOC and I'm happy that the Board has chosen not to treat the two identically as the GAC had requested. The two are VERY different when it comes to public protection and fraud avoidance.

 

Anyway... I am writing here just as suggestion to perhaps cut the Red Cross a little slack. Its own internal politics notwithstanding, it is unarguably an extraordinary organization, that has a substantial public-facing presence and actively solicits charitable funds. Its names are very vulnerable to abuse, and its presence in short-term emergency events makes it especially exposed to quickly done exploitive registrations (ie, redcrosshaitistormrelief.com).

 

While there is much reason to be concerned in the over-reaching of name protection within ICANN, I think this is an instance -- maybe one of the very few -- where protection can provide real public benefit.

 

- Evan

 

 

On 19 June 2014 11:20, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I am also VERY concerned about this latest attempt to change GNSO policy and expand trademark privileges even further post hoc.  How many backflips is ICANN supposed to do for the Red Cross?   How much community time and energy is spent on creating special privileges for these special interests.  Just imagine if all this energy and resources could actually be put toward something worthwhile.

 

Robin

 

 

On Jun 17, 2014, at 5:33 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:



To NCSG Councilors,
This is interesting as it expands the Trademark Clearinghouse in ways that it was never intended to be expanded. As you know, the TMCH was a narrow mechanism - to give trademark owners with a clear, registered trademark, a place to put it.

As these IGO names go into the Trademark Clearinghouse, we (NCSG reps in the GNSO Council) must require them to have some sort of description of their purpose -- something equivalent to the "description of goods and services" of a trademark. Because of these descriptions of goods and services, trademarks are limited, and trademarks such as Delta Faucets, Delta Airlines and future Deltas can co-exist.

But here it appears we are being asked to protect the IGO acronym in the abstract - some sort of protection of mere letters -- an absolute ownership of characters. But that can't be right - as the WHO (World Health Organization) coexists with The WHO (the rock and roll group). 

Please remind everyone that the TMCH registrations are a basis for URS proceedings (the ultra-fast uniform rapid suspension of New gTLD domain names).  So without descriptions, the World Health Organization will come to own the string "WHO" with no bounds, no limits, and an almost absolute ability to pull it from anyone else using the string (including other noncommercial organizations sharing these common 3-letter acronyms in completely different areas of operation).

Even IGOs have bounds and limits - and a clear description of the areas and communities they serve.  This needs to be added to the requirements if these terms are to be added into the TMCH database.

What is the deadline here, and how can we work together (Councilors and those in NCSG who helped design (and limit) the TMCH) to help define and further limit this new IGO registration?

Best,
Kathy:

 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  [council] FW: Letter from Cherine Chalaby
Date:    Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:11:04 +0100
From:    Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:        <[log in to unmask]>
Organization:    Afilias
To:      <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
 
All,
 
 
 
FYI and for further discussion / follow-up.
 
 
 
Jonathan
 
 
 
*From:*Megan Bishop [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*Sent:* 16 June 2014 21:09
*To:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Letter from Cherine Chalaby
 
 
 
Dear Jonathan,
 
 
 
Attached please find a letter from Cherine Chalaby, providing an update
on the ongoing work by the NGPC in response to the GNSO policy
recommendations regarding Protection of IGO-INGO identifiers.
 
 
 
Regards,
 
Megan
 
 
 
Megan Bishop
 
Board Support Coordinator
 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
 
 
 
12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300
 
Los Angeles, CA 90094
 
Mobile: +1-310-795-1894
 
Direct: +1-310-301-5808
 
 
 
/One World. One Internet./
 
 
 




This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

 

 



 

--

Evan Leibovitch

Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org

Sk: evanleibovitch

Tw: el56

 

 

Explore ways to make excellent teaching the reality in every classroom. Attend the ASCD Conference on Teaching Excellence, June 27–29, in Dallas, Tex. Choose from more than 150 sessions on assessment, college and career readiness, STEM, and instructional practices. Featured presenters include Jay McTighe, Baruti Kafele, Richard Curwin and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cte.


This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of

the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is

confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or

have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the
sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any

attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.