Re: [gnso-idn-wg] GNSO IDN WG - Updated draft Outcomes Report

["Charles Shaban" <cshaban@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Olof and colleagues:

Thank you for the report it lays the key issues clearly. Sorry for
not being able to participate in the calls regularly, I will make
sure to be on the last call next Tuesday before Lisbon and I will be
in Lisbon.

I have few comments on the report from IPR point of view:

- Item 4.1.1: I support the "alternative view" that we should resolve
IDN policy issues before launch of application round. I do not think
it is credible for ICANN to embark on another round and recognize
perhaps 50, 75 or 100 new TLDs (all these numbers are being talked
about within in the new TLD committee as I understood) from which
users of non-ASCII scripts remain totally excluded. Of course if a
round does go forward I endorse the agreement on 4.1.2 to avoid
ASCII-squatting. The example given there could easily be anticipated
but it may be much more difficult to anticipate the impacts of
granting new ASCII TLDs on some other IDN TLDs. So waiting until the
IDN issues are resolved is the best course. 
- Item 4.1.5: I support the alternative to resolve policy before
developing priority criteria. I would be very cautious about "lower
entry barriers" as a way to address this problem, which barriers
would be lowered? those involving technical issues? security and
stability? More clarification to the lower entry barriers is needed.
- Item 4.2.2: I agree that a country should be able to reserve IDN
strings for the country name. Beyond that, I support the alternative
that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions.
I strongly agree, however, that the opposition of the established
institutions of a particular language group to a proposed TLD
(whether ASCII or IDN) targeted to that language group should provide
a basis for ICANN to defer or deny the application (I understood that
a similar rule is under study in the new TLDs committee to apply to
economic or cultural sectors, e.g., .bank or .library).
- Item 4.5.4: I support the alternative view that phonetic confusing
similarity should be a basis for refusing an application. There is
plenty of experience under trademark law in resolving conflicts
between words in different languages that sound similar.

Best regards,

Charles Sha'ban
Executive Director, Regional Office
Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (AGIP)
Telephone No.: +962 6 5100900
Fax No.: +962 6 5100901
TAGI CAMPUS - Building No. 1, Queen Noor Street
P.O.Box 921100 Amman 11192 Jordan
email: cshaban@xxxxxxxx
Website: www.agip.com, www.tagorg.com

CAS 18/3/2007

Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property (AGIP) provides an extensive range
of intellectual property services from over 60 offices and through
over 180 correspondents worldwide. For more information, please visit
www.agip.com.
Our sister company, Abu-Ghazaleh Legal (ABLE), is now operating in
all countries in the region. For more information, please visit
www.tag-legal.com

"We try harder to stay first"