[cc-humanrights] infographic ICANN & Human Rights v0.3 pls comment

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Avri,

As you know, the closed gTLD issue had many origins, including deep 
competition issues, so I think the issues here are a little different. 
What I am pointing out is that the Human Rights document does not 
actually include a major issue that the public interest advocates in 
ICANN have been working on for over 15 years. And that the use of the 
Internet infrastructure to seek ways to allow certain trademark owners 
to dominate basic dictionary words. I can't think of a more basic right 
than the right to use our names (first and last) and basic dictionary 
and descriptive words in legal and noninfringing ways.  That's what 
completely legal outside of the Internet.  Yet again and again trademark 
owners have come to ICANN seeking additional protections -- including 
the right to block basic dictionary words (which happen to be 
trademarks) in all second level domains.

In fact, I note Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Table embodies this 
ides of "ownership" of a string of letters in the Domain Name System -- 
completely contrary to free expression, fair use and "free use of common 
words" arguments that many in the Noncommercial Users Constituency have 
made for years.

- For example, "Protection of International Organization Names in all 
gTLDs" -- The International Govermental Organizations have come in many 
times to ICANN seeking to protect **their acronyms** in all second level 
domain names. But that would mean that the World Health Organization 
(WHO) would then "own" the word "WHO" online in all gTLDs -- although a 
famous rock group, The Who, should probably have a future 
WHO.ROCKANDROLL and someone might legitimately want to register WHO, 
WHAT, WHY, and WHERE and some future .REPORTING generic top level domain 
to teach the basics of reporting. All of these acronyms are used many, 
many times by organizations and companies... So far, the answer has been 
No. Why would this Table say otherwise???

Overall, trademarks need protecting, but so does the balance of language 
and its use by all. How can you can protect trademark rights without 
protecting the traditional balances to trademark rights?  And if so, 
where are the protections for the traditional limits of a trademark 
(which is a limited right to use a term/terms for a specific commercial 
category of goods and services), and yet not block all forms of 
noncommercial and commercial non-infringing and legal use?

Almost every word is trademarked in the US Trademark Office, yet we have 
not stopped speaking yet ... :-)... or naming our children, 
organizations, groups and small businesses.. or criticizing corporations 
that need it, brands that harm people, and corporate practices that 
abuse them... Are such rights embodied in the Table?  Guidance welcome!

Best, Kathy (Kleiman)

On 6/1/2016 4:50 PM, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While I have long felt there is a naive right of the people to the
> linguistic commons, i am not sure how that roots into the UDHR derived
> rights.   It is one of the important questions, but I do not see how we
> argue against tradmarks from a UDHR perspective.
>
> Also I thought that the NCSG was divided on this issue.  We saw that
> division in the argument for private use gTLDs, with claims that a
> company did not have the right to use the gTLD book for its own closed
> purposes.  There are those, like me, who thought that of course they
> could do that.  There those who argue that this is the egregious
> cultural theft.   I do not know how to approach that issue from a UDHR
> based rights perspective.  Would be good to getndle on it since it is a
> persistant issue and I expect will need to be dealt with in the New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedure PDP.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 01-Jun-16 15:33, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>
>> <<Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption
>> that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
>>
>> As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm clear
>> what you mean by/**/"a fundamental right to … allow us all to use
>> basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"/*>>
>> */
>>
>> Pranesh, I think you have summarized the concept brilliantly and
>> succinctly. Tx you and yes!
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>> On 6/1/2016 3:07 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>>> Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> [2016-06-01 14:32:54 -0400]:
>>>> The right to use domain names to help us label our websites for our
>>>> children, small businesses, causes and organizations in ways that are
>>>> legal and noninfringing seems the most basic of human rights.  But on
>>>> the Internet and in ICANN, large companies would like to reserve "their
>>>> words" and block all others from registering them in domain names.
>>>>
>>>> /*I would urge us a fundamental right to all to push back -- and allow
>>>> us all to use basic dictionary words, our names and last names, freely
>>>> and openly in all legitimate and legal ways without prior blocking or
>>>> prior review. *//*We have fought for this Right to Words since the
>>>> founding of ICANN -- is this something you might capture in this table?
>>> Do I read this correctly as ensuring that there is no presumption
>>> that trademarks trump other uses of domain name?
>>>
>>> As you know, I'd support that, but I'm just trying to ensure I'm
>>> clear what you mean by "a fundamental right to … allow us all to use
>>> basic dictionary words, our names, and last names, freely and openly…"
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-humanrights mailing list
>> cc-humanrights at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights