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

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm still troubled by the eliding/conflation of "abuse" of a domain
name by a third party and "harm" to the organization whose name is at
issue. The former usually, but does not always, lead to the latter.
Since ICANN is charged with coordinating the DNS, and a prior Working
Group (on domain name registration abuse) had worked out a definition of
what might constitute abusive registration (not use, which can slide
uncomfortably into content regulation) of a domain name, should we not
consider the question before us to simply be whether ICANN ought to
protect INGOs against abusive registration of domain names corresponding
to their names or acronyms?  

In which case, evidence of harm *may* illustrate the need for such
protections but does *not* necessarily equate to a justification (or
not) one way or the other. 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  


>>> 


From:  
"Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 

To: 
Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

CC: 
"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 

Date:  
2/12/2013 2:07 PM 

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



Thomas,
Yes, we think that if a sufficient number of governments have agreed to
grant some type of protection we should do the same.
Best regards,
Osvaldo

El 12/02/2013, a las 16:53, "Thomas Rickert"
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>> escribió:



Osvaldo,
thanks for your e-mail.

Am I correct to understand that the ISPs do not wish to see evidence of
harm prior to moving forward considering protections?

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 12.02.2013 um 19:48 schrieb "Novoa, Osvaldo"
<onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>:

>
> Sorry Thomas, I was traveling.
> In the ISPCP we discussed this point and our position is that if a
sufficient number of governments have given some kind of protection to
these organizations that should be enough for us.
> We,all know the kind of harm that could be done if they are not
protected, that is the reason for the RPM established, so we think there
is no need for proof that they have or may have suffered some kind of
harm
> Best regards,
> Osvaldo
>
> El 12/02/2013, a las 16:42, "Thomas Rickert"
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
escribi??:
>
>
>
> All,
> some of you have responded to the below e-mail. May I ask those who
have not done so yet to please respond?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> Am 07.02.2013 um 21:18 schrieb Thomas Rickert
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>:
>
>>
>> All,
>> following up on yesterday's call I would like to ask all of you to
answer either of the following questions. As you will remember, there
was some debate surrounding the question if and what evidence of harm
needs to be presented to the group and Chuck proposed the following
questions, which I have modified a bit:
>>
>> 1. Are there those who want to see evidence of harm before
considering granting protections?
>>
>> 2. Are there those who are requiring protections who are unwilling
to provide information? If so, are you offering other or a subset of the
information required according to the survey sheet.
>>
>> Please answer the question by next Tuesday.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
>




________________________________
El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est� dirigido
�nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci�n 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. Est� prohibida cualquier utilizaci�n, difusi�n o copia de este
e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec�ficas
destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con
respecto a cualquier comunicaci�n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo
nuestra Pol�tica de Seguridad de la Informaci�n


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.