[cc-humanrights] Rights Protection Mechanisms - impact? concerns?

Tue Jun 7 19:05:03 UTC 2016

Hi Kathy,

I think that these things are in the graph because they are perceived as
being potential risk for human rights.

It is by no means implied that these RPMs are human rights or any such
thing.

So am not sure why they should be removed. I think they are in there for
exactly the reasons you stated. Or am I missing something?

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 06/07/2016 08:06 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> I agree with Kathy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com
>> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Sorry to be raising issues so late in the game. As some of you know, I
>> am on the Registration Directory Services WG, co-chairing the Rights
>> Protection Mechanism WG and attending as many meetings of the IGO/INGO
>> Working Group meetings as possible. These groups are moving quickly...
>> so life is busy! But I do need to ask about the "rights protection
>> mechanisms" in the table and share that they are concerning from a
>> human rights and public interest perspective.
>>
>> Under *Rights protection mechanisms*
>>
>> - *Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs *-
>> there has been a lot of concern raised about this in the history of
>> ICANN. In particular, Rafik Dammak, now chair of Noncommercial Users
>> Constituency, then on the GNSO Council, voted Against the protection
>> of RedCross in all gTLDs because a) there might be places where the
>> RedCross organization was not entitled to the second level domain
>> name, such as a future gTLD that evaluated philanthropies for their
>> effectiveness, efficiency and amount of funds dedicated to overhead,
>> administration and salaries of its heads and b) the idea of blocking
>> one word at all levels has free expression ramifications that are
>> enormous and potentially devastating...
>>
>> For example, ICANN's free expression advocates fought (successfully)
>> against blanket protection for the Olympics Committee to control the
>> use of the word "olympics" at the second level of all gTLDs -- because
>> what would that do to the free expression rights, the free competition
>> rights, and the rights to geographic terms if those in Greece and
>> elsewhere could not regularly, broadly and openly use the word
>> "olympics" in domain names to write about the history of ancient
>> olympic games, research and visit historic Olympic sites in Greece,
>> hike and bike in the Olympic Mountains and Olympic National Park in
>> the US, eat at Olympic Restaurants, etc.?  As in other areas, allowing
>> different people to use the same word in different and legitimate ways
>> in different and legitimate gTLDs makes sense...
>>
>> - *Curative Rights protection for IGOs/INGOs *- currently, the
>> IGO/INGO working group of the GNSO with some very senior attorneys is
>> working this issue through. IGOs and INGOs would like to protect not
>> only their names, but their acronyms, and those acronyms are used many
>> different ways by name different groups, organizations, small
>> businesses, etc. For example, the World Health Organization would like
>> the rights to remove domain names using WHO.COM <http://who.com>
>> outside of the traditional UDRP and URS processes. But Who
>> Entertainment (WHO.COM <http://who.com>) and the classic Who rock
>> group might prefer to have full due process in a UDRP or URS action --
>> and the opportunity to prove they are using their valid marks and
>> domain names in good faith. 
>>
>> Please follow the work, now in its ending stages of the GNSO's
>> IGO/INGO Working Group --
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access
>>
>>
>> - New gTLDs subsequent round - this the Working Group that I am
>> co-chairing with Phil Corwin and J.Scott Evans, and we are trying to
>> figure out to what extent the special rights protection mechanisms
>> created for New gTLDs (Trademark Clearinghouse, Uniform Rapid
>> Suspension procedure, Trademark Notice and Sunrise Periods) are fair,
>> balanced and should be extended to New gTLDs?  It's a real open
>> question.  We have some evidence that millions of new registrants,
>> smaller registrants, and registrants in developing countries are being
>> turned back or "chilled" from legitimate and legal registrations in
>> New gTLDs. Shouldn't we review what has happened with New Rights
>> Protection Mechanisms in New gTLDs -- and how fair and balanced the
>> rules have been -- before we advise extending them to "subsequent
>> rounds"? 
>>
>> Please join us in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group for
>> this discussion!
>>
>> - Rights protection mechanism in all gTLDs -- ditto for the above.
>> There is real question and concern that Rights Protection Mechanisms
>> created for New gTLDs don't belong in the "legacy gTLDs" such as .COM,
>> .ORG and .NET because they were created specifically for the special
>> problem of the roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs at the same time.
>> What impact on free expression would there be to superimpose a system
>> of rights protection mechanisms never intended for the older gTLDs to
>> them so that the same protection exists in "all gTLDs"?  Dangers huge
>> -- questions being explored also by the Rights Protection Mechanism WG
>> - and we invite you to join us!
>>
>> In light of the dangers, could these provisions be rephrased or removed?
>> Tx much for reading!
>> Kathy
>>
>> On 6/7/2016 9:49 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I have integrated your comments and suggestions as well as I could and I
>>> think we have a very nice info-graphic right now that we can present in
>>> Helsinki.
>>>
>>> So I would like to do a last call to see whether you all can live with this.
>>>
>>> Of course this will remain a working document, but it would be great if
>>> we can show this in Helsinki as work of the CCWP HR.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to hear your comments, questions and/or suggestions.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <mailto: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/20160607/3f30d546/signature.asc>