ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] preparation of tomorrow's call

  • To: gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] preparation of tomorrow's call
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:10:58 -0400


On a first reading, I can support this way of moving forward.  I have passed it 
by the NCUC executive and while I only have preliminary indications, I do 
beleive that my constituency could also support it.  I am not sure what would 
happen at the NCSG level at this point - I assume we would have some sort of 
split view and in terms of g-council votes, we usually only come to those 
indications in the NCSG member policy meetings we have before each g-council 


On 10 Jul 2012, at 15:30, Thomas Rickert wrote:

> Dear all,
> in preparation of tomorrow's call I would like to summarize some thoughts on 
> second level protections. For those who have been present at the early 
> morning session in Prague - this is basically what I stated during the 
> meeting.
> To start with, the question we are tasked to work on is the protection of the 
> IOC/RCRC designations 
> (i) at the second level; 
> (ii) for identical strings.
> The GNSO has already carried out extensive work with respect to reserved 
> names. As can be seen from the final report of the Reserved Names Working 
> Group 
> (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), 
> there was even a minority position mentioned in the report which expressly 
> deals with IGOs and other parties criticizing the lack of protection for 
> those entities. This shows that comparable scenarios have been discussed and 
> considered, but that such protections have ultimately not been included in 
> the recommendations.
> Thus, the question is whether existing GNSO policy needs to be reconsidered 
> and potentially requires alteration. In my view, this would only be the case 
> if 
> (i) the situation had changed since the original policy recommendations have 
> been made or
> (ii) new threats have emerged that require the GNSO to reconsider its policy. 
> ad (i)
> To my knowledge, the legal situation as regards the protection of the 
> designations in question has not changed. 
> ad (ii)
> The information provided by IOC/RCRC shows that the vast majority of cases 
> where the rights of the organizations have allegedly been violated involve 
> domain names that are not identical matches, but similar strings or strings 
> where the designations in question are combined with additional characters. 
> I understand that protections for similar strings have been requested by 
> Debbie Hughes during the meeting in Prague and on occasion of one telephone 
> conference. However, this is not covered by the remit of the discussion group 
> (as the drafting team is now called). 
> In my view, the information provided to the discussion group does not 
> evidence special or new threats for the organizations for identical strings 
> at the second level. 
> On the contrary, the risk of identical designations being registered by third 
> parties for legitimate or illegal use has existed and still exists for all 
> rights holders. In order to address this threat scenario, there are mandatory 
> Rights Protection Mechanisms and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.
> The situation for the IOC/RCRC does not seem to differ from the threats other 
> rights holders are exposed to. It may well be that the RPMs and the DRMs 
> adequately address the threats.
> Hence, there are mechanisms in place that are designed to respond to exactly 
> the threats in question. 
> One might not find this result satisfactory, in particular since the use of 
> the above mechanisms requires resources and money, but to respond to these 
> concerns, other answers rather than a policy answer should be given.
> One answer might be to try to address the cost issue. 
> Also, let's not forget that new gTLDs can deploy more RPMs than the mandatory 
> RPMs. Many registries plan to do so. Many, if not all of them will deploy 
> their own lists of reserved names. 
> It may well be that new gTLD Registries are willing to add certain 
> designations to their lists of reserved names on a voluntary basis. 
> It may well be that new gTLD Registries have more RPMs that protect the 
> designations in question even more comprehensively than the mandatory RPMs 
> and DRMs.
> It may well be that (not all) new gTLDs are not an attractive target for 
> wrongdoers. We do know that there is a relation between the attractiveness of 
> a namespace and the risk of abuse. 
> On the other hand:
> It may also be that we find that the RPMs and DRMs do not provide a 
> sufficient level of protection. 
> It may also be that IOC/RCRC are exposed to special threat scenarios. 
> However, appropriate responses to that would require empirical data stemming 
> from experiences made after the launch of new gTLDs.
> Thus, a policy response could be required for the second and subsequent 
> rounds, but not for the initial round.
> As a consequence, I propose that the DT responds to the GNSO Council that
> - no special protection should be granted and no new policy shall be made for 
> the first round;
> - this may change based on the experiences with the launch of the new gTLDs 
> in the first round;
> - opportunities to lower costs should be considered for each organization 
> separately when implementing RPMs and DRMs;
> - a recommendation could be made to new gTLD Registries to respond to request 
> to voluntarily protect the designations in question.
> I am looking forward to talking to you tomorrow.
> Best regards,
> Thomas Rickert 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law
> Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (i.e. 
> law firm)
> www.anwaelte.de
> Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet Industry
> www.eco.de

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy