[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on the Mission statement
David Post
david.g.post at gmail.com
Mon Nov 23 14:40:33 UTC 2015
At 05:41 PM 11/22/2015, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>Hello David,
>
>DP: The UDRP is a good example of how this line works, for
>me. ICANN does have the power to set up a process to resolve
>disputes over domain names, because the outcomes of those disputes
>necessarily and inherently affect the content of the DNS databases
>directly. ICANN does not have the power to set up a process to
>resolve disputes over consumer fraud complaints, because the
>outcomes of those disputes do not affect the content of the DNS databases.
>
>BT: That sounds reasonable - although the decisions of UDPR do
>relate to how the domain name is used, which inevitably involves
>considering the content of websites or emails that make use of that
>domain name. e.g. using "apple" as an example. I can have a
>domain name like "apple.expert" that refers to an expert on the
>topic of Apples as a fruit - but couldn't use that domain name
>without approval for being an expert on Apple computers.
DP I think I might disagree with you about that, but I don't think
that matters for the current question. I don't actually think that
Apple gets some kind of a "veto" over my attempt to register the
domain "apple.expert." But we don't have to decide that question
here; what I think we DO agree on is that the question is indeed
within ICANN's "picket fence" - that ICANN has the power to make that
decision (or to set up a process like the UDRP to make that
decision), because that dispute (like the disputes handled by the
UDRP) is a dispute over the name itself, and how names are allocated,
and it necessarily affects the content of the DNS databases directly;
>BT So the dispute does relate to the domain name, but resolving
>that dispute requires an understanding of how that name is used.
DP Correct. I'd say it a little more forcefully: the dispute
doesn't just relate to the domain name, it is about the domain name.
>BT A counter example Is suppose could be a name like
>"computer.expert". A website referenced by that domain name could
>potentially use trademarks of Apple, but that would be a dispute
>about the content of that site, and not the domain name. The main
>requirement would be that the contact information for the domain
>name is accurate, so that Apple could take the appropriate legal action.
DP We agree on that, too. Whether someone can or cannot use the
Apple trademark on a site at computer.expert (or at davidpost.com,
for that matter) is NOT a question about the name "computer.expert"
itself, or about how the name "computer.expert" is to be allocated;
the exact same question about the use of Apple's trademark can arise
at davidpost.com, or at icann.org ... That is a question that
concerns what the stringholder can do once the string has been
allocated to him/her, and that is NOT within the scope of ICANN's power.
David
>Regards,
>Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>David
>
>
>
>
>*******************************
>David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
>blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
>music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications
>etc. http://www.davidpost.com
>*******************************
>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications
etc. http://www.davidpost.com
*******************************
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list