[ssac-gnso-irdwg] Comments from International Trademark Association

[Steve Sheng <steve.sheng@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://forum.icann.org/lists/ird-wg-report/msg00006.html


Comments of the Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee
of the Internet Committee of the International Trademark Association (INTA)
on the Interim Report of the ICANN Internationalized Data Working Group
March 14, 2011


The Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee of the INTA Internet Committee is 
pleased to provide its comments on the Interim Report of the ICANN 
Internationalized Data Working Group of 15 November 2010.



I. Introduction

The INTA Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee (hereinafter the Subcommittee) 
has reviewed the Interim Report of the ICANN Internationalized Data Working 
Group (the Interim Report) and in particular the four models for providing 
registration contact data discussed in the Interim Report. The 
Internationalized Data Working Group (IRD-WG) has requested comments on which 
of these four models if any, is most appropriate, and whether there are other 
models the IRD-WG should consider?



II. Executive Summary

In summary, the Subcommittee recommends a modified version of Model 4.  More 
specifically, Model 4 is summarized in the Interim Report generally as:  
Provide data in any script accepted by the Registrar and Registrar provides 
translation tools to publish in "must be present" script.  The modification 
suggested by the Subcommittee is that a language tag be required to be added to 
the published registration data so that a third party can identify the language 
using the language tag and more easily obtain an independent translation of the 
registration data.  If the language tag does not accurately identify the 
language of the registration data, then a mechanism should be provided for the 
correction of the language tag by the Registrar or for the provision of a 
translation of the registration data by the Registrar.  The least desirable 
option, in the opinion of the Subcommittee, is Model 2.

III. Discussion

A. Model 4: Provide Data in Any Script Accepted by the Registrar and Registrar 
Provides Translation Tools to Publish in "Must be Present" Script

Model 4 is described in Section 4.5.4 of the Interim Report under the 
sub-heading "Provide data in any script accepted by the Registrar and Registrar 
provides translation tools to publish in "must be present" script."  The 
discussion in Section 4.5.4 of the Interim Report indicates that the tools that 
are provided by the Registrar are intended to assist the Registrant in 
translating and publishing the provided data in a "must be present" language.  
The "must be present" language would be a language approved by ICANN, but need 
not be English.



Assuming that the translation is accurate, and provided that the data is 
published in an ICANN approved language, the Subcommittee's position is that, 
with slight modifications, Model 4 is a workable solution.



Specifically, the Subcommittee recommends that a language tag also be provided 
that identifies the language in which the registration data is published.  This 
will assist third parties in obtaining an independent translation of the 
registration data into a language suitable for review by the third party (e.g., 
to English in the case of an English speaking third party).  In the absence of 
a language tag, unless ICANN severely restricts the number of languages in 
which the data can be published so that the specific language of the published 
registration data is readily identifiable, the published data may be 
meaningless to third parties needing this data.  That is, third parties cannot 
obtain a translation into a language they can understand if they cannot 
identify the language of the published registration data.



The Subcommittee believes that this modified Model 4 approach will not overly 
burden Registrars.  Registrars would not be required to produce a translation 
but only to provide tools to the Registrants so that the Registrants can 
arrange for the translations.  The Registrars can request that the Registrants 
who submit the data also identify a language tag at the time the data is 
submitted.



In the event a translation cannot be obtained by a third party using the 
language tag (e.g., the language tag is incorrect), a mechanism should be 
provided to enable the third party to obtain an accurate translation of the 
registration data.  The Subcommittee is not in a position to recommend the 
specific mechanism that should be adopted.  However, possible examples would be 
to require the Registrar, upon request, to provide the requester with a correct 
language tag; with a translation of the registration data into a language 
requested by the third party requester; or with a correct language tag and the 
original registration data as submitted by the Registrant to the Registrar.  
The latter example would provide a requester with information that would enable 
the requester to independently verify the accuracy of the translation.



Given the international nature of domain name registrations, Model 4 as 
modified in accordance with the discussion above is believed by the 
Subcommittee to allow an expansion of the languages in which data can be 
published while at the same time providing third parties with a reasonable 
pathway to perform a limited investigation of the registration data.



The Subcommittee is not making any specific comments concerning the 
informational content of the registration data that is required to be provided 
other than to mention that the required registration data should be the same 
regardless of the language that is utilized and that registry-level Whois 
information should be maintained (thick Whois).



B. Model 1: Provide Directory Service Data in "Must Be Present" Script

Section 4.5.1 of the Interim Report generally describes Model 1 as requiring 
Registrants to provide their directory service data in a "must be present" 
script, for example, in US-ASCII7.  In addition, under this model, the 
Registrars have the option of asking the Registrants to provide their contact 
information in local script, which should then be displayed if it is provided.



The Subcommittee believes that Model 1 is acceptable. However, the Subcommittee 
agrees with the comment in the Interim Report that the Model 1 approach would 
provide the fewest benefits for internationalized registration data since the 
local language display is optional.



C. Model 2: Provide Data in Registrar-Accepted Script and Point of Contact

The Interim Report describes Model 2 in Section 4.5.2.  Under Model 2, 
Registrants would provide their registration data in a script that can be 
accepted by the Registrar, and the Registrar would provide a point of contact 
for transliteration and abuse issues upon request.  The Registrars would also 
be required to forward the same information to the Registry.



The Subcommittee does not believe that this Model 2 approach provides enough 
certainty that third parties can independently review the registration data, 
especially on a timely basis.  For example, if the point of contact is 
unavailable or unresponsive, third parties inquiring into the registration data 
have no independent pathway to follow to investigate the registration data.  
Notwithstanding these concerns, if this Model were to be adopted, the 
Subcommittee suggests that (i) this point of contact should be able to assist 
with translation (not only transliteration) issues; and (ii) a language tag be 
provided (as discussed above in connection with Model 4).



D. Model 3: Provide Data in Any Script Accepted by the Registrar and Registrar 
Provides Transliteration Tools to Publish in "Must be Present" Script

Model 3 is discussed in Section 4.5.3 of the Interim Report and is described 
generally as follows:  A Registrant would provide their registration data in 
any script accepted by a Registrar, and Registrars would provide tools to 
assist the Registrant in providing a transliteration of the data so that the 
transliteration can be published in a must be present script.



The Subcommittee believes that a transliteration would not be accurate enough 
to assist in intellectual property enforcement.  In addition, there is no 
mechanism provided for a third party to verify the accuracy of a 
transliteration. Nonetheless, if this Model were to be adopted, the 
Subcommittee suggests that a language tag be provided.



IV. Conclusion

The Subcommittee has reviewed the four Models described in the Interim Report 
and has concluded that Model four is a workable solution; providing that a 
language tag is included with the registration data to allow a third party to 
obtain an independent translation of the data; and also providing that a 
mechanism exists to allow third parties to obtain a correct language tag or a 
translation of the registration data in the event the initially provided 
language tag does not correctly identify the language in which the registration 
data is published.  The Subcommittee believes that Model 4 as modified will 
provide benefits to the international community in that the registration data 
can be published in more languages.  The Subcommittee also believes that Model 
1, requiring the publication of data in a "must be present" script, such as 
US-ASCII7, is an acceptable alternate model.  Finally, regarding the two 
preliminary recommendations of the IRD-WG, the Subcommittee in principle agrees 
with the broad concepts of the preliminary recommendations, advocates openness 
and accessibility of Whois data, and welcomes technical proposals from the 
community for implementing these recommendations.



Thank you for considering our views on these important issues. Should you have 
any questions regarding our submission, please contact INTA External Relations 
Manager, Claudio Digangi at: cdigangi@xxxxxxxx



About INTA & the Internet Committee:

The International Trademark Association (INTA) is a more than 132-year-old 
global organization with 5,600 member organizations in over 190 countries.  One 
of INTA's key goals is the promotion and protection of trademarks as a primary 
means for consumers to make informed choices regarding the products and 
services they purchase.  During the last decade, INTA has served as a leading 
voice for trademark owners in the development of cyberspace, including as a 
founding member of ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC).



INTA's Internet Committee is a group of over two-hundred trademark owners and 
professionals from around the world charged with evaluating treaties, laws, 
regulations and procedures relating to domain name assignment, use of 
trademarks on the Internet, and unfair competition on the Internet, whose 
mission is to advance the balanced protection of trademarks on the Internet.  
The INTA Internet Domain Disputes and Whois Subcommittee is a subcommittee of 
the INTA Internet Committee.