RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm discussion

["Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,
You are right, but the GAC can counsel the Board and that is what they have 
done.  I am not too happy with giving special conditions to anybody, but on the 
other hand I think we have to show governments that ICANN is doing a good job 
managing the domain names so we should try to follow GAC's advices, as long as 
it doesn't affects negatively ICANN's operations.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] En 
nombre de Avri Doria
Enviado el: Miércoles, 13 de Febrero de 2013 14:17
Para: GNSO IGO INGO
Asunto: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm discussion


Hi,

thanks for the reply.

BTW, it is not for GAC to give reserved name status nor, to order ICANN to do 
so.


The Governments have all on International law at their disposal.  If they want 
to make it illegal to use such names in doomain names, they are more than able 
to create the international instruments to do so.  As far as I can tell they 
haven't.

so since,

- We apparently have no law forcing a policy of special protection, and
- We apparently have no additional harm forcing this policy.

The question before us is: what basis do we have for creating a policy of 
special consideration for RCRC and IOC (those who claim a common notion of sui 
generis), or the IGOs and the INGOs?

and if the answer is,

'but they do good stuff and it is in the global public interest to do grant 
them permission,"

how do we differentiate between these specific examples and all the other 
organizations, e.g my favorite Médecins Sans Frontières, for all the good work 
they do?  And how do we do this without looping the argument back to

for now until infinity, repeat:

  "but there are International instruments ..."
  "that have not force of law"
  "but there are harms"
  "but these are not different"
  "but they do good"
  "but how do we differentiate"


avri


On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Good points all.  And yet, we did not give reserved name status to all 
> Trademarks.  In order to have any cause for more protection than the 
> trademarks currently receive, there needs to be a standard of harm that goes 
> beyond anything that has ever been recognized for trademarks.
>
> It is that which must be shown, both for the creation of new policy and, in 
> my view at least, for any admission criteria.  If we use GNSO Outcomes Report 
> on Domain Tasting (2007) as the basis for policy or admission to special 
> protections, we open yet another opportunity for trademark holders to gnaw at 
> the apple.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 13 Feb 2013, at 08:14, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote:
>
>> Hi Evan,
>>
>> First of all sorry if it sounded pedantic, I did not intend to ridicule or 
>> disrespect those that asked for the harm, and sorry if it felt I did.
>>
>> What I meant is that there is series of known threats to the name owners 
>> arising from the fact that some other third party might use their name for 
>> other ends.
>> From the GNSO Outcomes Report on Domain Tasting (2007) I extracted the 
>> following.
>> The possible harms might be:
>> For the organization:
>>      * Infringement of their trademark rights
>>      * Erosion of brand name thru to user confusion
>>      * Erosion of reputation thru users diverted to unexpected and 
>> potentially harmful sites
>>      * Loss of revenue thru diversion of traffic
>>      * Increased monitoring costs and reduced possibilities to trace IPR 
>> violators
>>      * Increased brand enforcement costs from additional infringing 
>> registrations
>> For the Internet user:
>>      * Confusion and lost of time when reaching an unexpected web site
>>      * Dissatisfaction due to unintended or erroneous commercial transactions
>>      * Harm from spamming, malware and fraud
>>
>> These are valid for any case when a domain appears with the name of any 
>> company and it doesn't represent that company.  In the case of IGO and INGO 
>> we considered that, due to the fact that an important number of governments 
>> have decided to grant them a special protection, ICANN should also grant 
>> them a special protection.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Osvaldo
>>
>>
>
>
>



El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente 
al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. 
Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente 
respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los 
posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier 
utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad 
que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna 
responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida 
incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. 
Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not 
the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any 
communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.