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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

The fact that some organizations published a report of their perception of the 
problems was published at an earlier time does not mean they were analyzed and 
reviewed in the context of the PDP.

It is now time for this WG to review those declarations and to decide on their 
relevance and the degree to which they should be determinative in creating 
policy.  

avri


On 30 Jan 2013, at 08:36, <Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx> <Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 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 OfSam.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] On 
> Behalf Of GUILHERME ricardo
> Sent: 29 January, 2013 6:08 PM
> To: 'Roache-Turner, David'; 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] De 
> la part de Roache-Turner, David
> Envoyé : mardi 29 janvier 2013 17:49
> À : Gomes, Chuck; Berry Cobb; 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] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: samedi, 26. janvier 2013 22:25
> To: Berry Cobb; 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] On 
> Behalf Of Berry Cobb
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 3:17 PM
> To: 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
> @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.