RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Thoughts on fact-based policy development

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree Greg.  If and when we decide to recommend an exception process, we will 
be able to work out the details and your separation of the cases is helpful.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:11 AM
> To: 'Alan Greenberg'; Christopher Lamb; GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Thoughts on fact-based policy development
> 
> 
> I don't think the issue of "exceptions" is a huge challenge.  In part
> this depends on what protection is adopted (if any) and how it is
> managed.  A reserved names/"block" approach is only one alternative.
> In the DT that preceded this WG, we worked out a mechanism that dealt
> with "exceptions".
> 
> I also think we should distinguish between (a) the "exceptions" that
> would grant an organization the ability to register its own name (e.g.,
> redcross.charity) and (b) the situations where a non-NGO/IGO wants to
> register and the NGO/IGO that might have a claim doesn't, and (c)
> situations where both a non-NGO/IGO and an NGO/IGO want the same domain
> name and both have a legitimate claim (The Who vs. WHO?).  The first at
> least, doesn't seem terribly complex.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:46 AM
> To: Christopher Lamb; GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Thoughts on fact-based policy development
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris.
> 
> A couple of thoughts after reading your note.
> 
> - There are certainly many potential abuses to try to attract disaster-
> related money that are completely beyond out control. Even if we came
> up with a way to prevent Redcross-tsunami.tld, we certainly cannot stop
> Haiti-earthquake.tld which might use you symbols and name in e-mail and
> web sites. And that is part of what I am trying to understand in my
> suggestion. To what extent is exact match prevention likely to
> SIGNIFICANTLY help you.
> 
> - Regarding domains registered under ccTLDs, we need to recognize that
> many of those are not defensive registrations but real working domains
> for the country/regional organizations, as is the case with the ca, eu
> and ch examples.
> 
> - Exceptions are going to be a challenge. If a .charity comies into
> being with good controls over who can register, do you really want to
> be prevented from registering redcross.charity?
> 
> Lastly, and not related to the work of this WG, if you know the story
> behind redcross.us, I would really like to understand it (presuming it
> is legitimate, which it seems to be). Is it just a cute play on the
> English word US?
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 23/01/2013 06:52 AM, Christopher Lamb wrote:
> >Dear Alan,
> >
> >Thanks for this.  I'd just add that there are a very large number of
> >domains which use redcross or redcrescent in association with a
> country
> >code.  You mention redcross.ca and I won't list all the others of
> which
> >I'm aware unless you wish me to do so, but Switzerland is an example
> >worth noting - the main website is redcross.ch but croixrouge.ch,
> >crocerossa.ch and roteskreuz.ch all lead to it.  The website
> >redcrescent.org was owned by someone in the US a couple of years ago
> >and dormant, but now appears to hold a lot of information related to
> >disasters - but it doesn't appear to be owned by any organisation in
> >the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement.  Another which worries me is
> >http://www.croix-rougecamerounaise.org/, an example of what should not
> >be possible and which is probably entirely beyond the control
> resources
> >of the Cameroon Red Cross Society.
> >
> >There are many examples of people trying to make money out of the
> >redcross brand in domain sales.  Have a look at laoredcross.org, which
> >has nothing to do with the Red Cross Society of Laos.  Redcross.me is
> >for sale.  Quite a lot of country code domains are a source of
> concern,
> >and although they're not part of the current study they offer examples
> >of the way fraudsters and money-makers work.  The RCRC Movement spends
> >a lot of time and resources getting the relevant authorities to remove
> >these sites, usually successfully, but it is very resource-intensive
> >and a special problem when domains appear from nowhere after virtually
> >every newsworthy disaster with worldwide coverage.  As you would
> >expect, these people expect to make all their money in the first 48
> >hours while media coverage of the suffering is at its most intense,
> and
> >lengthy procedures are completely ineffective - in all cases which
> I've
> >tracked the looters disappear with their money long before any
> >procedure could get started.
> >
> >There are also cases of abuse with the intention of denigrating the
> >National Society concerned.  One, a few years ago, concerned the abuse
> >of the name of the Hungarian Red Cross in the US.  There have been
> >others aimed at National Societies which chose to use acronyms or
> >initials for their domain name and exposed themselves to danger - one
> >was the Palestine Red Crescent Society whose domain palestinercs.org
> >was mirrored and then abused in palestinercs.net.  This isn't a
> subject
> >covered by our current work, and it's my hope that when we resolve the
> >future TLD system the RCRC Movement should ask National Societies to
> >regularise their naming protocols in accordance with that system.
> >
> >I did a survey of the misuse or abuse of the names of National RCRC
> >Societies in February 2011 and without difficulty found and reported
> >19 egregious cases.  Following that most were able to be removed, but
> >some, like the Lao and Cameroon cases, are still there.  Time
> >permitting, I would look into this again if it were necessary, but the
> >hard fact is that the redcross and redcrescent names are abused as a
> >matter of course after significant newsworthy natural disasters or
> >conflicts.  A spectacular one in 2005 enticed the unsuspecting public
> >to donate to a bogus thing called the Santa Maria Red Cross Tsunami
> >Survivors Fund.  You won't find it any more, but what we did to put it
> >down is a great story worthy of a movie script. Not what we should be
> >aiming for through this process, of course.
> >
> >I recognise that this will look like an anecdotal commentary, but it's
> >also reality.
> >
> >Best wishes
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:44 PM
> >To: GNSO IGO INGO
> >Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Thoughts on fact-based policy development
> >
> >Both I and the ALAC in its recent statement have stated that if we are
> >going to take the large and unusual step and provide special
> protection
> >to IGO/INGO names, we should do so understanding what
> >problem(s) we are trying to solve and have a high level of comfort
> that
> >the proposed solution actually will address these problems.
> >
> >To take a large number of character strings out of circulation, or at
> >least put in place significant (no doubt both costly and
> >time-consuming) hurdles to using these strings without a substantive
> >benefit is counter to the culture that has allowed the Internet to
> >thrive. Moreover, it sets the stage for even more similar requests in
> >the future, both on the basis of TMs and "public money".
> >
> >To date, we have seen virtually no data related to IGOs and little
> >related to INGOs on the problems they currently suffer that would be
> >relieved with the reservation or blocking of their requested
> >exact-match names and acronyms.
> >
> >To try to get a feel for whether this is just an obstreperous
> objection
> >or really has merit, I undertook a small and not necessarily
> >representative study of the names of a number of organizations.
> >Specifically NATO, ITU, UPU, CERN, WHO, ILO, UNICEF and RedCross. All
> >except the last two were signatories of the letter requesting
> >protection for IGO names (recently resent to this group along with the
> >UPU statement appended to the RySG input, but which also can be found
> >at
> >http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-
> et-al-13dec11-en.pdf).
> >
> >I checked to see whether their names were registered in a number of
> >TLDs, specifically int, com, net, org, info, biz, us, ca and eu, who
> >they were registered to, and what use was being made of the domain
> name
> >(from a web point of view). The results are attached.
> >
> >- Lines highlighted in Dark blue are used by the organization in
> >question (or an affiliate). Light blue are sort of used by them, but
> is
> >not actually an active web site, or is used in a rather curious way,
> or
> >is seemingly owned by a private individual who redirects the site as a
> >matter of courtesy.
> >
> >- Lines highlighted in dark green seem to be legitimate uses of the
> >name but not by the organization in question. There is a pale green
> >entry that would be reasonable except it is largely a monetization
> site.
> >
> >There are large number of monetized pages, and a fair number of uses
> of
> >names for which I can see no rationale at all. In no cases has any of
> >the organizations in question taken control of all of the names.
> >
> >For the first few, I also did a reviews search on the e-mail admin
> >contact address listed in the Whois, as some measure of how many other
> >domain names are managed by that organization. The short answer is
> "not
> >many" for those that I looked at. I stopped when my free access to the
> >reviews whois engine was cut off.
> >
> >This was an interesting exercise, but as stated earlier, there is no
> >pretense of this being a definitive analysis. But it does bring into
> >question just how important the requested reservations are, what uses
> >would such reservations rule out if implemented as complete blocking,
> >and what harms will be prevented by their implementation.
> >
> >I strongly suggest that at the least, we request specific information
> >from the organizations that have explicitly requested protection (at
> >the very least RCRC, IOC, and the organizations identified in the
> >13Dec11 letter). This should include:
> >
> >- A list of TLDs in which they have registered their requested names,
> >or otherwise taken action to prevent them being registered by others.
> >- Identification of any disputes over identical names, names that
> would
> >have been disallowed if the requested policy had been in place for all
> >gTLDs, and the outcomes of these disputes.
> >- Identification/elaboration of the harms caused by the above cases.
> >- An estimate of the magnitude of these cases compared to other domain
> >name conflicts which will not be prevented by the requested gTLD
> >protections.
> >
> >Lastly, I would suggest that we ask whether they would:
> >- Expect exceptions to the reservation of their names to allow their
> >own registration of the names
> >- How they contemplate allowing exceptions for the legitimate use by
> >others of the names.
> >
> >Alan
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                 * * *
> 
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
> are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-
> mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
>                                                                 * * *
> 
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform
> you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose
> of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
> state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
> to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> 
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00