ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[irt-draft-report]


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

Comments with an IDN and less-developed nation perspective

  • To: irt-draft-report@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments with an IDN and less-developed nation perspective
  • From: "S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:43:12 -0700

*
Comments on the IRT Draft Report from primarily and IDN perspective - and particularly as it affects poorer and less developed parts of the world and their scripts.*

The GNSO new gTLD and IDN gTLD policy and guidebook development process has taken some 3 years with enough time for the less-well represented IDN community (almost no significant voice within GNSO and gTLD side of things) to review and comment. In contrast, because of the voluminous changes now being introduced at rapid speed by the IRT to the earlier Guidebook/new gTLD Policy, there has been little time for anyone in the broader ICANN community (save for the folks in the IRT itself) let alone less-resourceful folks with an IDN perspective (not simply legal (and mostly Western legal) but cultural, linguistic and otherwise) of the comprehensive changes being proposed - many reversals of the previous Guidebook/Policy (in particular from the input from the GNSO IDN Working Group Report).

In any case, here is brief and non-comprehensive list of significant issues in the IRT proposals a they relate to IDN.

*(1) The two- page IRT report and recommendation on string confusion algorithm.* If string confusion algorithm check is to be expanded to include aural and "meaning" similarity (presumably across IDN scripts) then it should be only done so with the caveat that two compared strings should be deemed similar *IF and ONLY IF* they are found similar on *ALL 3 *expanded counts (visual, aural, meaning - (whatever that means across IDN scripts!)). i.e. if similarity is found only on one if the 3 tests, the applied string should go through to th next step.
*
(2) Appendix One Table in the Introductory 14 pages:* Under the "Right" field relating to IDN Variations must only be allowed for placement in the IP Clearinghouse *IF and ONLY IF* the right-owning registrant already has that said right (presumably a trademark) in that script and in the country(or in some cases countries) where that language/script is primarily spoken. Say a high threshold - e.g. trademarks filed in the country (or all of the countries) that collectively involve more than 80% of the global population that uses that script.

*(3) Section 6 of the Introductory 14 pages:* Where it is described that the "The SERS are: ", the clause "ownership of a registration of a national effect" must be defined in the case of IDNs to mean that "national effect" means "all of the the nation or nations which collectively include some high threshold (say 80% >) of the global population that uses the said IDN script/language.
*
(4) Section 4 (Protection of GPMS) of the Introductory 14 pages:* If string confusion algorithm check is to be expanded to include aural and "meaning" similarity (presumably across IDN scripts) then it should be only done so with the caveat that two compared strings should be deemed similar* IF and ONLY IF* they are found similar on *ALL 3* expanded counts (visual, aural, meaning - (whatever that means across IDN scripts !)). ie. if similarity is found only on one if the 3 tests, the applied string should go through to th next step. ( To the extent a similar right is given to varying levels of protected strings in the general IRT document - this same condition should apply analogously if the criterion is to be expanded to 3 tests from the existing Guidebook single test). *(5) Section 2 (IP Clearinghouse) of the Introductory 14 pages:* If either a watch service or an IP claims is to be setup that confers any level of rights to preclude another registrant of the same after a Sunrise period (if any), an entity should only be able register or make use of that service (watch or IP claims) with regard to an IDN string *IF and ONLY IF* minimally that exact IDN string has already been trademarked (or otherwise legally protected) in *ALL* of the national jurisdictions that collectively include more than a high threshold (say > 80%) of the global population of the users of that IDN script/language.

*(6) Clause 2 of Appendix A relating to "WIPO".* Such accommodation should only be deemed true IF and ONLY IF the limits and territorial character of trademark (and related) rights as it pertains to the IDN script of the particular IDN gTLD (and registry) fall overwhelmingly within the boundaries of the principal country or group of countries that collectively include a high-threshold (say > 80%) of the global population that uses that IDN script/language. e.g. a complainant with an exact IDN match that is not already trademarked (or an equivalent legal right already procured) within all of the said "principal or principal group of countries" should have no case against someone (or the registry operator) who has already previoulsy registered that string on a first-come-first-ever basis.

S. Subbiah
i-DNS.net International Inc.




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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy