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

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of GUILHERME ricardo
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:23 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist

Dear All,

I would just have a very minor suggestion to all participants: it would be 
better if, whenever replying “point by point” to another person’s message, one 
could use a different quote level or font color in order to clearly separate 
between the original message content and any embedded reply – otherwise, it’s 
very difficult to identify the authors of each paragraph (I know this may be 
difficult to do in “raw text” messages, but at least some separating lines 
would be useful).

GSS> I agree with Ricardo.

With kind regards,

Ricardo

De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Alan Greenberg
Envoyé : vendredi 25 janvier 2013 05:56
À : 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>)
Objet : RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist

A few replies embedded

At 24/01/2013 06:00 AM, Roache-Turner, David wrote:

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.

Indeed if someone could really masquerade as one of those there may be real 
harm done. But in all of those cases, the parties dealing with those entities 
are not novices who will likely be taken in and go so far as to deal with the 
fake entity. At least at present, in most cases, their web sites are not their 
main means of interacting with their "customer" base.

There are some, however, where that is not the case, and those are the ones 
that I believe (perhaps not shared by you or others) that we need to focus on.

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?

I don't think it is a question of comparing the two. ICANN is bound by its AoI 
and Bylaws to protect the fabric of the Internet. By this WG that we are 
participating in, ICANN is in the process of judging what protections need to 
be given to the type of organizations you reference.

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?

Regarding ISTF, I don't have a clue why that is still there. Unless some new 
entity (other than the Internet Societal Task Force) has taken on that acronym, 
the ISTF was killed 11 years ago (I was one of those on the Internet Society 
Board when the action was taken).

I would really suggest that we not go anywhere near a discussion of whether 
NATO (an IGO composed of some countries but specifically not many others) is 
critical to the stability of the Internet.

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.

I will not pretend to speak on behalf of the Board, but my understanding is 
that they took a simple implementable action which would protect, on an interim 
basis, most if not all of the names that this PDP might end up protecting to 
ensure that IF we recommend protection, the names not be registered by others 
in the interim. That Board action, unless the Board explicitly overrides any of 
our forthcoming recommendations, is very much a place holder and not a formal 
long-term decision of the Board (unless we fail to make any recommendations!).

Alan




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.



* * *

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