Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: pruett
Date/Time: Wed, November 15, 2000 at 8:23 AM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: ICFTU (.union) response to concerns of Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN

Message:
 

 
        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)

     
 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy