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

Tue Jun 7 11:26:00 UTC 2016

I went with:

> free and fair use of domain names >  the right

to use all words and names in domain names

Will send you the last version of the graph later today.

best,

Niels

Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

On 06/03/2016 12:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The discussion seems to be converging. If we put 'Economic, Social and
> Cultural Rights', and 'Freedom of Expression' next to each other, we
> could have a converging theme (with lines from both rights). Could you
> make a suggestion what theme that could be?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> 
> On 06/02/2016 10:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
>> Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se
>> infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and
>> cultural protection.
>>
>> However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims
>> (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only
>> trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for
>> instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the
>> tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes.
>>
>> And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to
>> freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well.
>>
>>
>> Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human
>> rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an
>> important claim to be made.
>>
>> Regards, Pranesh
>>
>> On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings
>> <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of
>>> all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart
>>> that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made
>>> since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even
>>> better.
>>>
>>> As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se
>>> infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do
>>> appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the
>>> linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how
>>> that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of
>>> expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of
>>> registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a
>>> trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just
>>> like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to
>>> solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access
>>>> would
>>> entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the
>>> basic words used to name their current and future products,
>>> services and companies?
>>>
>>>
>>> Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what
>>> it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re
>>> ICANN policies and related history:
>>>
>>> Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’
>>> element involved when registering one. So if it is already
>>> registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same
>>> domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of
>>> abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s
>>> operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the
>>> registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark
>>> does not supersede the original registration?
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access
>>>> would
>>> individuals have to domain names for their children or using their
>>> last name?
>>>
>>>
>>> This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does
>>> not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access
>>> to domain names for their children or using their last name’,
>>> right?
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would
>>>> and
>>> noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to
>>> sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous
>>> products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and
>>> legally use the brand name of the company)?
>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non
>>> commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique
>>> and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or
>>> monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands,
>>> to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’
>>> etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.
>>>
>>> regards Bastiaan
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights
>>> mailing list cc-humanrights at icann.org 
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-humanrights mailing list
> cc-humanrights at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cc-humanrights/attachments/20160607/725746d8/signature.asc>