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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am fine with approach Claudia suggests in here first paragraph but I have 
thoughts about the following descriptions.

" organizations with global reach and extraordinary public service that face 
the risk of abuse of their names in the upcoming expansion of the DNS "
- Judging what is 'extraordinary public service' will require subjective 
judgments; we would have to make some subjective decisions in developing 
criteria; who would be the judge?
- Judging 'abuse' may also involve subjectivity; one persons abuse is another's 
free speech; we would have to be careful not to get into content, which would 
be beyond ICANN's and the GNSO's remit.

"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'"
- I agree with this statement but believe that it applies to all registrations, 
not just some subset of names, so I don't think it is very helpful for tasks.
- To the extent that there are international treaties that define 'illegitimate 
or unauthorized', we would have an objective basis for determine that.

" the Internet community deserves a clear rationale for a grant of special 
protection"
- I completely agree with this but think that our rationale must be as 
objective as possible, i.e., minimize subjectivity.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:12 AM
> To: Thomas Rickert; Avri Doria
> Cc: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed protection matrix - to be
> discussed during the next call
> 
> 
> 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?
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>