RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist

["Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

We support WIPO's comments, and would only add that the same case may apply to 
non-profit INGOs with a global public reach.

And while I continue to object to the ad hoc exercise of requiring an arbitrary 
threshold of existing domain name abuse to be anecdotally evidenced here, we 
can refer to a recent domain name 
case<http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DMX2010-0013> 
where our name was registered (<iso.org.mx >) to masquerade as the 
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in Mexico.  The registrant 
devised a scheme to fraudulently collect money in ISO's name.  This caused 
significant damage for us and our member in Mexico (one member of 164 current 
members).

The harm is a reputational one and an operational one (not just a financial 
harm).  And to avoid that harm when some 1000 new TLDs may be on the horizon 
could imply an unacceptable diversion from serving the public interest, such as 
developing and maintaining standards like ISO 3166-1 (used for country code top 
level domains and referenced in ICANN's Applicant Guidebook.)

Sincerely,
Claudia


From: Roache-Turner, David [mailto:david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2013-01-24 12:00
To: Alan Greenberg; Shatan, Gregory S.; Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx); Berry Cobb (mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Jim 
Bikoff (jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx); David Heasley (dheasley@xxxxxxxxx); Kiran 
Malancharuvil (kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist


Thanks for that helpful clarification Alan.



I think one key word here is 'could'.



Someone masquarading, for example, as a non-profit UDRP dispute resolution 
provider (WIPO) could also do significant harm (e.g. issuing fraudulent 
decisions depriving registrants of their domain names), as could someone 
masquarading as, for example, an IGO providing coordination of global postal 
services (UPU), or of treaty-based international security (NATO), or of support 
for international development (World Bank), or of global financial and monetary 
stability (IMF), or of economic cooperation (OECD), or of world health (WHO), 
or ineed any other IGO engaged in the important provision of such public 
services.



Could it really be that the legally protected names and acronyms of such IGOs, 
and by extension the security and stability of their work, could somehow be 
regarded by ICANN policy makers as less worthy of preventive protection against 
significant harm that could result from someone masquarading as that entity, 
than ICANNs own name, especially in a massively expanded DNS?



Could it really be, for example, that the inclusion of a body such as the ISTF 
(presumably the Internet Societal Task Force) on the reserve list could somehow 
be regarded as more critical to network security and stability than a body such 
as NATO, or somehow more worthy of ICANN preventive protection than IGOs whose 
legal protection of their names and acronyms is there precisely to preclude 
others masquarding under their names and acronyms?



In any event, to the extent that consideration of harm would even continue to 
be a relevant part of our deliberatons on IGO protection (noting the UPUs 
earlier, IGO-supported comments on this aspect of the work plan), I think our 
imposing an evidentiary bench mark any higher than that which was apparently 
used for ICANNs own name ("could" result) would be disproportiate.  It is also 
notable that the ICANN Board resolution on IGO preventive protection via the 
reserve list includes no requirement for any demonstration of harm in order for 
an IGO to qualify, nor does the GAC advice on IGOs, harm's prevention being the 
relevant goal, not its identification as a rerequisite.



With best regards,



David Roache-Turner





________________________________
From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 6:23 PM
To: Roache-Turner, David; Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT'; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>); Berry 
Cobb (mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>); Jim Bikoff 
(jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>); David Heasley 
(dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>); Kiran Malancharuvil 
(kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist
I cannot speak to the rationale for the protection of geographic names, but my 
understanding of the protection to the ICANN and Internet-related names stems 
from the ICANN Articles of Incorporation and Bylaw requirement to protect the 
stability and security of the Internet name and number system, and that someone 
masquerading as one of the authorities of this infrastructure could do 
significant harm.

Alan

At 23/01/2013 11:02 AM, Roache-Turner, David wrote:


 Was such evidence of actual harm to ICANN's own names, or the geographical 
ones, called for in order to qualify for preventive protection on the reserve 
list, that being the option currently contemplated by the Board? Is not the 
risk of such harm so obviously inherent in the introduction of infinite numbers 
of new names enough to protect the institutionalized public interests involved?


World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message 
may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If 
you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender 
and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail 
attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.