The IPC raised a number of concerns with representatives
of the .union proposal with regard to the treatment of intellectual property in the
proposed domain. In the interest of transparency, we are making our response public.
_________________________To:
Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN
From: Duncan Pruett, International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions
Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2000
Response
to issues raised with regard to the ".union" proposal in the IPC Evaluation Chart
for Proposed TLDs (October 2000)
Further to our morning meeting on November 14,
please find written responses to questions raised. I would like to stress, once again,
that the ICFTU is willing to continue its dialogue with the IPC on these issues.
Trade unions have trademark and intellectual property concerns of their own, are
keen to identify approaches acceptable to all parties.
It should be noted, however,
that many representatives of the world's trade union movement have participated in
the formulation of the ".union" proposal, and that the policies described therein
cannot be radically altered without significant consultation within the community
- this TLD proposal foresees, as requested by ICANN, participation of the affected
community in TLD policy making. As a result, in the event that this application is
approved by ICANN, some outstanding issues may still need to be resolved within the
trade union community, and in further dialogue with the IPC. We fully accept the
need for this, and look forward to further dialogue.
Furthermore, we wish to remind
the IPC that ICANN requested diversity in the models proposed for the TLD applications
which would be part of the "test bed". We believe that implementation of the model
we have proposed, although not always conforming strictly to the criteria of the
IPC, will provide valuable proof of concept in a number of ways.
Sunrise mechanism:
As
outlined in our answer to E.12, during the start-up period, priority will be given
to the biggest bona fide trade union organisations. During the first two months,
only the "TLD Trustees" (the 216 national trade union centres affiliated to the ICFTU)
and the International Trade Secretariats (the 10 industry specific international
trade union bodies), and the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD will be able
to make domain registrations. After the first two months, the list of approved registrants
will then be expanded with a first list of organisations given special priority by
the TLD Trustees. After another 3 months, the TLD Trustees will be able to add additional
priority organisations to the list. This approach has been designed not only to ensure
an orderly build up of use, but also to protect the legitimate interests of the stakeholders,
which in this case are the international and national trade union organisations.
This approach has been devised by representatives of the trade union community, and
we believe it has an analogous function to the "sunrise" provisions referenced by
the IPC.
Further questions were raised about prepayment of domain registration
fees, and a certification that all statements are true in applications. The latter
part of this is dealt with in our answer to E.5.3, where provisions in the service
agreement are discussed. Although we did not specify a requirement for the prepayment
of registration fees, we certainly agree that such a policy is necessary, and plan
to implement it.
Finally, it is requested that we state explicitly that a union
officer registering under this TLD specify that he/she has the authority to act on
behalf of that union organisation. We agree that this policy is necessary, and although
we may not have made it explicit in our answer to E.16, where registration restrictions
are discussed, the "contact person" mentioned would certainly need to specify that
they have the authority to make domain name registrations on behalf of the organisation
in question.
Domain name disputes:
Although the IPC seems comfortable with the
fact that the UDRP is proposed by the ICFTU as a mechanism to resolve name disputes
in the TLD, they object to the proposal that only bona fide trade union organisations
would be allowed to bring complaints against other bona fide trade union TLD registrants,
requiring that third parties (which are not bona fide organisations under the TLD
charter) might also be allowed to bring complaints against registrants. We understand
this concern, and see it as valid, although we feel that to allow name registrations
to be challenged freely by third parties also provides the possibility for abusive
or "bad faith" complaints from third parties. We would therefore commit to the following:
If a third party wished to challenge a domain name inside this TLD (presumably
to request cancellation of the name, since transfer would not be applicable), they
could submit the details of the complaint to the ICFTU, in both written and electronic
form. The ICFTU would then pass the information on to the relevant TLD Trustee(s)
(ie. the national trade union centre and/or the relevant International Trade Secretariat).
The recipient(s) of the information would then decide whether to respond, and if
so, how. Responses might include an activation of the supplementary conciliation
mechanism described in E.6.2, or a challenge by the TLD Trustee against the domain
name holder through the UDRP.
Should this TLD be approved, this approach to handling
complaints by third parties would be reviewed after the first year by the sponsoring
organisation, to assess its effectiveness, and to aid in any possible revision of
the policy. The IPC's comments would be welcomed at this time.
It should be noted
that the ICANN Non Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency approved a resolution
on Monday supporting restricted access to the UDRP in restricted TLDs. The policy
proposed for ".union" is in line with this provision of the resolution.
Mechanism
for resolving charter violations:
With regard to the comment that there is no mechanism
for resolving charter violations, the IPC is referred to E.16. It describes a mechanism
to review the bona fide credentials of organisations wishing to register, or already
qualified to make registrations in the TLD. TLD Trustees can challenge the qualification
of an organisation already approved to register in the TLD, which would result in
the case being referred to an adjudication panel. The IPC felt that this approach
did not go far enough, and that third parties should also be allowed to be heard
with regard to a possible "charter violation".
We regard this as a fair concern,
although it also raises the danger that, for instance, an organisation expressly
intending to overburden or "tie up" the adjudication panel could do so by requiring
the panel to review a large number of bogus cases. For this reason, we can, until
further review of the issue has been undertaken, only promise that third parties
would be able to submit information to the adjudication panel regarding possible
charter violations. The panel would use its own discretion as to whether to act upon
the information received. Alternatively, a third party could submit information to
a TLD Trustee, which could itself decide whether or not to refer the case to the
panel on behalf of the third party. In either case, the information should be submitted
in both written and electronic form.
Provisions for WHOIS service:
This issue
is being addressed separately by POPTEL Ltd, the proposed registry operator. The
information will be communicated to the IPC under separate cover.
General comment:
The
IPC review observed that the "Guidelines are still in draft form and are 'likely
to run' as set forth in the application". As was discussed in our meeting, these
guidelines should not be seen as nascent restrictions on domain names, but as helpful
guidelines for registrants, encouraging registrants to follow a certain "etiquette"
in the way they make domain name registrations. We have only proposed to use these
guidelines in our screening of name registrations during the start up period. We
have proposed this screening as a responsible precautionary measure during the start
up period only and we do not expect to continue this policy beyond this period.
For
more information, contact Duncan Pruett, ICFTU (duncan.pruett@icftu.org or at Holiday
Inn Express Marina Del Rey (310) 821.4455)