[gnso-igo-ingo] Donuts' Input

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxx>]

Donuts Inc. has closely followed the deliberations of the working group 
addressing the use of terms related to the International Olympic Committee, Red 
Cross/Red Crescent (IOC/RCRC), and certain international governmental and 
non-governmental organizations (IGOs). 
 
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the proposals put forward by the 
Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) on 20 April 2013.  Donuts generally supports 
the RySG’s position and offers the following detail on each element of the 
proposal:
 
IOC/RCRC protection
Donuts agrees with the protection of full IOC/RCRC names at the top and second 
levels.  In fact, Donuts announced previously that it would proactively reserve 
IOC/RCRC names (as listed in Sec. 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook, or 
AGB).  We reaffirm this commitment and our agreement with the RySG on 
protection of IOC/RCRC names.
 
Donuts further believes the best course of action would be to adhere to 
Specification 5 of the current version of the Registry Agreement.
 
IGO Full Names
Donuts also supports the RySG proposal to protect 192 fully spelled out 
versions of IGO names at the top and second levels, as detailed by the GAC in 
Annex 2 of its communication of 22 March 2013 (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-annex2-22mar13-en.pdf).
  (International organizations, as defined by the GAC, include: a) an 
international organization established by a treaty and which possesses 
international legal personality; or b) an “Intergovernmental organization” 
having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the 
sessions and the work of the United Nations General Assembly; or c) a distinct 
entity, organ or program of the United Nations.) Consistent with our commitment 
on IOC and RCRC names, Donuts will reserve the 192 fully spelled out versions 
of IGO names documented by the GAC. The reservation will protect the IGO names 
at the second-level across all gTLDs operated by Donuts (e.g., 
worldhealthorganization.TLD).  These names also will be made available for 
registration by corresponding IGOs at their option and their request. 
 
Donuts firmly believes the list of protected terms should remain static at the 
current total of 192 through the launch of the current new gTLD round.  We 
support such a reservation requirement in all TLDs, as well as a corresponding 
ability to register names by IGOs, depending on individual TLD registration 
requirements.
 
Acronyms
The RySG correctly recognizes that acronyms for the IGO terms listed in the 
above-referenced GAC list can be legitimately used by other potential 
registrants, and rather than reserving such acronyms, advocates for their 
inclusion in new gTLD rights protection mechanisms. These RPMs include the 
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS), the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), 
and the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), making them eligible for sunrise and 
claims processes. 
 
Donuts supports permitting IGOs, at their option, to register their acronym 
names into the TMCH and utilize the mandatory sunrise processes based on 
individual registry registration requirements, similar to the treatment of 
validated trademarks.  Donuts observes that, per TMCH and registry rules, 
priority should not be assigned to IGOs ahead of trademark holders; names 
instead should be allocated in sunrise to competing parties according to 
registration requirements of that registry.  Doing so grants IGOs the same 
enhanced rights that trademark holders enjoy under the AGB, provides IGOs and 
trademark holders “first crack” at acronyms in unrestricted gTLDs, and is 
ultimately the most equitable and practical method for all parties.
 
Integrating IGO names into the TMCH is not a trivial task and will require 
careful thought and compromise. However, existing TMCH rules can also be 
applied to IGOs to create a set of operational rules that work. These rules 
govern registration criteria, priority, what constitutes exact match and so on. 
Using the existing rules will serve to meet operational concerns and provide 
for inclusion of acronyms in RPMs.  Donuts believes this approach serves the 
best interest of IGOs, governments, new registries and the community.
 
After the sunrise process ends, IGO acronym names would be made available to 
any registrant pursuant to the registration rules of that registry. 
Importantly, IGO acronyms would have the trademark claims process, the URS and 
the UDRP open to them for additional protections during the period of open 
registration.
 
Exception procedures
The Working Group (WG) has debated various procedures for allowing a 
non-protected entity to use the name or acronym of a protected organization at 
the second level.  As the Board informed the GAC, this remains a complicated 
and unresolved matter.
 
Donuts observes that protection of full names at the second level and the 
addition of acronyms to the TMCH eliminates the need for exception procedures.  
No exception is needed for the full names of IGOs, as they are reserved and may 
be registered only by IGOs themselves (provided they meet a registry’s 
requirements); neither are exceptions necessary for IGO acronyms, as IGOs that 
do not participate during sunrise are effectively acceding their potential 
usage to other organizations.
 
Acquiring second-level names
The RySG advocates allowing IGO organizations with reserved full terms to apply 
for names at the top and second levels.  Donuts will ensure that protected 
organizations, upon their request, are able to register their corresponding 
full names at the second level.  As stated above, Donuts also supports the 
ability of protected organizations to register representative acronyms through 
the Trademark Clearinghouse, the sunrise process, and during general 
registration.
 
Fee Waivers
While not specifically addressed in the RySG paper, Donuts is aware the WG has 
begun discussion regarding waivers of certain fees for beneficiaries of 
protection (e.g., TMCH applications, URS and UDRP filings, objections to 
top-level applications (presumably in the next round)).  In the interest of 
fairness, Donuts does not find compelling reasons to grant waivers of fees, and 
opposes this as a matter of policy.
 
Donuts thanks the WG for its significant work to date and looks forward to 
further contributing to the eventual resolution of this issue within the GNSO 
Council.
 
Kind regards,
 
 
Jonathon Nevett
Co-Founder 
Donuts Inc.