RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed during the next call

["Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Thomas,

Without the benefit of Avri's thoughts on this, I suggest we start by defining 
the purpose and aim of a recommendation to grant special protections (very much 
in line with Mary's email regarding rationale) and place it directly into the 
spreadsheet.  

I suggest our aim is to identify a limited group of international organizations 
with global reach and extraordinary public service that face the risk of abuse 
of their names in the upcoming expansion of the DNS.  The justification is 
manifold.   For example, it is in the public interest to avoid or reduce 
confusion and fraud experienced by the public by illegitimate or unauthorized 
uses of such organizations' names,  avoid or reduce the expenditure of publicly 
funded non-profit international organizations' resources on fighting abuse of 
their names in the DNS, and to protect the reputation and goodwill in the names 
of international organizations that have been formally created and mandated to 
serve the international public interest.  I dare say I'm sure that someone more 
eloquent than I can word it better.

In any case, the Internet community deserves a clear rationale for a grant of 
special protection.  The criteria should flow from this rationale -- whether we 
suggest criteria proposed earlier, existing criteria (such as that required to 
be on the UN ECOSOC list), or newly created criteria that are tailored to 
satisfy the aim and purpose of granting special protection.

Naturally, we can consider whether protection should be granted only to those 
organizations that apply to ICANN for it.  Additionally, we can suggest 
requiring that the organization affirm a claim of legal protection in its name 
(using the TMCH for example) and possess at least one domain name where the 
second level matches the name to be protected to ensure that there is an online 
reputation to protect.  One can imagine some organizations might request the 
protection for only one short name or acronym instead of several lists of 
names.  We might even consider protection mechanisms that are not blanket 
reserved lists, but allow an organization to apply to individual TLDs for 
reservation of their names where the organization judges the risk for confusion 
is highest.  

But it's difficult to do this without being clear about what we are trying to 
do.

Sincerely,
Claudia

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: 2013-02-27 12:30
To: Avri Doria
Cc: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be discussed 
during the next call


Thanks Avri and Claudia,
thank you for your input. Can you please provide the group with alternative 
proposals that would address your concerns?

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 27.02.2013 um 12:25 schrieb Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think this is well stated.  I think the task of this group is purely 
> centered on the Public Interest question.
> 
> What should we recommend in regard to the global Public Interest that 
> balances the various stakeholder interests.
> 
> As I am attending the WSIS+10 and IGF week in Paris, I won't be participating 
> at today's meeting, but will catch up later.
> 
> avri 
> 
> 
> On 27 Feb 2013, at 12:04, Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT wrote:
> 
>> Where the law mandates an open door, let's recommend ICANN obey the law.  
>> Where the law does not mandate an open door but the public interest does, 
>> then let's open that one door on that clearly defined rationale.  Different 
>> organizations will certainly pass through, we can even predict some.  But 
>> that organizations can satisfy entry criteria in different ways doesn't 
>> justify opening different doors for different applicants (even if they have 
>> been cueing for longer).
>> 
>> May I suggest we define the rationale first, then from this consider how 
>> different organizations might satisfy that entry rationale?
>> 
> 
>