RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration Analysis

[<Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
What I said in my email is that the GNSO has already identified that "the 
problem exists"; this should not be under discussion.
This is not a legal or 'process' point per se, but just a basic statement of 
fact that the GNSO has, indeed, already recognized that there is a problem as 
far as IGOs are concerned. To wish to rediscuss or revisit those facts which 
had been analyzed in 2001 and 2007 is an unnecessary exercise. On the other 
hand, this does NOT mean that the GNSO has already taken a policy position (we 
all know that) - but the relevant facts are already on the table for that group 
to come up with an objective recommendation (or not, should the necessary 
consensus within the group be lacking).
Best regards,

Sam

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 29 January, 2013 8:20 PM
To: PALTRIDGE Sam, STI/ICCP; ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx; 
david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration 
Analysis

Sam,

Without commenting on the position being proposed, I would like to clarify a 
process point.  The GNSO Issue Report identifies possible issues (i.e., 
problems) for a PDP WG to investigate but should not be interpreted to mean 
that "the GNSO has already recognised the problems".  ICANN Staff prepared the 
report at the GNSO Council request for the purpose of identifying possible 
issues and in doing so includes information about the identified problems.  But 
Issues Reports are not evidence of community support for any particular 
positions.  It is the WG's responsibility to determine whether the problem 
exists and if so to consider whether policy should be recommended to solve any 
validated problems.  Of course, the IGO input to the PDP is useful to the 
fulfillment of these WG responsibilities.

The PDP process is designed to involve all stakeholders in deciding whether 
identified problems warrant policy development and if so facilitate development 
of policies that the full community supports.  Neither the Issue Report or 
reports such as the WIPO-2 report fulfill the rigor that is supposed to happen 
in a PDP.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 12:57 PM
To: ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx; david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration 
Analysis

Dear David, Ricardo and Colleagues,
The OECD strongly supports the posts by WIPO and UPU.  We can speak on behalf 
of no less than 40 IGOs which support this position.

We would also like to recall that the exercise seems redundant, since the GNSO 
has already recognised the problems.  This was noted in the comments provided 
by IGOs to the GNSO preliminary issues report:

"The GNSO Issue Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations of 
15 June, 2007 recognized, based on information provided by IGOs and independent 
research, the significant problems faced by IGOs from cybersquatting and other 
domain name abuses of their names and acronyms.  The problems have not 
diminished, and are likely to be exacerbated once the many new gTLDs become 
operational."

IGOs also recalled that "This was expressly recognized in the Draft Final 
Report of ICANN's Joint Working Group on the Wipo-2 Process - V3 (posted April 
19, 2004), in which item 63 provides that "the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name 
Process has shown that there is ample evidence of the extensive abuse of these 
identifiers [names and acronyms of IGOs and country names] in the DNS".

The final GNSO report equally mentions the comprehensive report of the "Second 
Special Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks" (WIPO-2), 
originally published by WIPO in 2001.

best regards,

Sam


From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of GUILHERME ricardo
Sent: 29 January, 2013 6:08 PM
To: 'Roache-Turner, David'; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration 
Analysis

Dear David and All,

As per the various statements made by the UPU and the IGO community on this 
topic since the beginning of the discussions (particularly in what pertains to 
the establishment of preventive policies for protection of such names and 
acronyms, as opposed to curative mechanisms), we wholeheartedly concur with 
WIPO's message and hope that this group's efforts can be effectively focused 
towards the identification of recommendations which are in line with the 
essential principles referred to in the aforementioned statements.

With kind regards,

Ricardo Guilherme

De : owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] De la part de Roache-Turner, David
Envoyé : mardi 29 janvier 2013 17:49
À : Gomes, Chuck; Berry Cobb; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Objet : RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration 
Analysis

Dear working group colleagues,

I think IGOs on their part have been clear on this - the nature of the problem 
is the lack of preventive protection for legally protected names and acronyms 
of IGOs engaged in public missions. In terms of legal and public policy basis, 
ICANN including preventive protection in its own policies for IGO names and 
acronyms is not (and need not be) predicated on provision of this type of data; 
nor is the GAC advice, nor is the ICANN Board's resolution on the issue. If 
some in this working group believe obtaining this type of data is helpful to 
inform their thinking, it should be noted that there is no consensus on such 
need.

New domains are not an inevitability, but result from an ICANN decision, which 
comes with consequences.  These include the substantially heightened risk - 
indeed, the near-certainty - of abuse of public causes on which nations have 
come together in IGOs. Are treaty-based bodies such as the World Health 
Organization (WHO) or United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), for example, 
somehow less deserving of preventive protection of their names in the DNS than 
an organization like the Red Cross? Should the online funding campaigns of the 
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for the disaster relief 
responsibilities which states have entrusted to it remain without preventive 
protection from the risk of abuse resulting from a significantly profit-driven 
expansion of the DNS? IGOs are protected under international law precisely 
because of the global recognition of the fundamental importance of such 
activities.

With respect to the issue of recommendations of this group more generally 
(which Alan touched on in the conclusion of his earlier email), I think the 
members can understand that, whatever data some of them might still seek, IGOs 
could not reasonably be expected to support any recommendation that is 
inconsistent with the effect of the preventive protection recommended by the 
GAC for the names and acronyms of IGOs or one that effectively purports to 
countermand the interim protection already resolved by the ICANN Board.

I very much hope that the above perspective is found to assist our working 
group deliberations.

With best regards,

David Roache-Turner
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: samedi, 26. janvier 2013 22:25
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration 
Analysis

Is the expectation that the organizations that want protection would provide 
the data?

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:17 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO Organization Survey / Domain Registration Analysis

Team,

Attached is a spreadsheet evolved from the analysis started by Alan Greenberg 
and supported by other in the WG that should be performed to further define the 
nature of the problem.  At this stage, we are looking for the WG to comment on 
this approach before we continue "filling in the blanks."  If the WG agrees 
with this approach, we can then discuss a divide and conquer strategy to 
complete the analysis.

A few notes about the SS:


1.            The 1st tab, "data_gather_form" is a list of the items Alan 
suggested we request information from organizations seeking protection.  Other 
WG members seemed to agree with this list of questions.  I'd like to ask the WG 
to review and recommend additional types of information that we should possibly 
request.  A possible tool to solicit this feedback from the organizations is to 
construct a survey and distribute to organizations identified for completion.  
ICANN has deployed a survey tool (LimeSurvey) that may benefit this exercise 
(https://limesurvey.icann.org/), and it may aid in generating useful statistics 
to aid in the analysis.

2.            The 2nd tab, "registration_by_org_by_tld" is a matrix evolved 
from the analysis performed by Alan, and it also includes responses submitted 
by the IOC.  Several notes about this framework:

a.  The organizations listed here are the organizations list in the 13DEC11 
letter to ICANN signed by NGOs.  It also includes UNICEF (from Alan's PDF 
analysis) that was not a signatory of the letter.

b.  Not all identifiers from the IOC and RCRC are included at this point.  We 
can add them to this analysis after we agree to the approach.

c.   I only completed the IOC identifiers as a working example.  As you will 
see we have much more to complete once finalized.

d.  Countrycodes listed next to the TLDs are not all inclusive, but I attempted 
to pick the larger ccTLDs.  We can add others as necessary.

e.  The remainder of TLD types are divided by generic, generic-restricted, and 
sponsored as defined by IANA Root Zone dB

f.   Cells with Green Fill and White letters are an indication that the site 
may have legitimate use, as first identified by Alan

g.  We may want to further define meta-tags for domains that are registered, 
but not controlled by the respective organization (i.e. do we tag by malicious 
use, monetary gain, for sale, etc....)

h.  Stats at the bottom of the chart for each organization are meant to:

*              Determine total % of identifier domains as registered across the 
various TLDs

*              Then a % of domains registered as a breakout of TLD type

*              Each is compared alongside as to whether the respective org has 
control of the domain or not

We welcome your input to this tool.  Please provide feedback over the list, and 
we will discuss this approach at our meeting next week.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb




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.