<div dir="ltr"><div>Kathy raises an interesting point that touches on a right to the use of basic words. This is a topical issue and can result in persons owning basic words to the exclusion of others. If this issue can be defined under the rubric of a fundamental right as per the UDHR then it should be included if possible for further discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>Karel Douglas</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Niels ten Oever <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:niels@article19.org" target="_blank">niels@article19.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I went with:<br>
<br>
> free and fair use of domain names > the right<br>
<br>
to use all words and names in domain names<br>
<br>
Will send you the last version of the graph later today.<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br>
Niels<br>
<br>
Niels ten Oever<br>
Head of Digital<br>
<br>
Article 19<br>
<a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.article19.org</a><br>
<br>
PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
<br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 06/03/2016 12:38 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> The discussion seems to be converging. If we put 'Economic, Social and<br>
> Cultural Rights', and 'Freedom of Expression' next to each other, we<br>
> could have a converging theme (with lines from both rights). Could you<br>
> make a suggestion what theme that could be?<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Niels<br>
><br>
> Niels ten Oever<br>
> Head of Digital<br>
><br>
> Article 19<br>
> <a href="http://www.article19.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">www.article19.org</a><br>
><br>
> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4<br>
> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9<br>
><br>
> On 06/02/2016 10:56 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:<br>
>> Dear all, I would like to clarify that trademarks do not per se<br>
>> infringe upon freedom of expression or upon cultural diversity and<br>
>> cultural protection.<br>
>><br>
>> However, the idea that trademark-rooted claims trump other claims<br>
>> (which is embodied in the idea of a sunrise period where only<br>
>> trademark owners can apply), in my opinion does. It privileges, for<br>
>> instance, baseball teams named after Native American tribes over the<br>
>> tribes themselves insofar as the global domain name space goes.<br>
>><br>
>> And I would reiterate that for me this is not just about the right to<br>
>> freedom of expression, but the right to cultural protection as well.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Stating that any attempt to privilege trademarks must undergo human<br>
>> rights analysis (not just free speech analysis!) is in my opinion an<br>
>> important claim to be made.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards, Pranesh<br>
>><br>
>> On 2 June 2016 14:11:25 GMT+05:30, Bastiaan Goslings<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net">bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Hi,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I have been in listening mode but want to chime in and first of<br>
>>> all complement everyone with the work done and the excellent chart<br>
>>> that has been drafted. Significant improvements IMO have been made<br>
>>> since v.01, and for now I have no comments how to make it even<br>
>>> better.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As a non-HR scholar I struggle to see how trademarks per se<br>
>>> infringe upon human rights. Specifically in this context. I do<br>
>>> appreciate the concept of a ‘naive right of the people to the<br>
>>> linguistic commons’, as Avri put it, but I too ‘am not sure how<br>
>>> that roots into the UDHR derived rights’. From a freedom of<br>
>>> expression angle I’d assume that ex ante anything goes in terms of<br>
>>> registering a domain name (e.g. by an individual or SME). But if a<br>
>>> trademark is involved a legal conflict might arise afterwards, just<br>
>>> like in the offline world, and there is (should be?) due process to<br>
>>> solve the issue. And then the trademark might prevail…<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 01 Jun 2016, at 20:32, Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:Kathy@kathykleiman.com">Kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access<br>
>>>> would<br>
>>> entrepreneurs and small businesses have to domain names with the<br>
>>> basic words used to name their current and future products,<br>
>>> services and companies?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Without knowing what a ‘Right to Basic Dictionary words’ is or what<br>
>>> it could be, and my apologies for my potential lack of knowledge re<br>
>>> ICANN policies and related history:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Domain-names are unique and there is a ‘first come first serve’<br>
>>> element involved when registering one. So if it is already<br>
>>> registered by someone else one cannot have the ‘right' to the same<br>
>>> domain-name. I understand there is a UDRP to resolve claims of<br>
>>> abusive, bad faith domain name registration, albeit only for gTLD’s<br>
>>> operated under contract with ICANN. Does that not imply that if the<br>
>>> registration is not ‘abusive’ or in ‘bad faith’ that the trademark<br>
>>> does not supersede the original registration?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access<br>
>>>> would<br>
>>> individuals have to domain names for their children or using their<br>
>>> last name?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> This I do not understand. At the moment this so called ‘Right’ does<br>
>>> not exist, but as long as names are unique ‘individuals have access<br>
>>> to domain names for their children or using their last name’,<br>
>>> right?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> - Without this Right to Basic Dictionary words, what access would<br>
>>>> and<br>
>>> noncommercial organizations have to use domain names that open to<br>
>>> sites that fairly and legally critique and criticize dangerous<br>
>>> products, unfair employment practices or monopoly restrictions (and<br>
>>> legally use the brand name of the company)?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I doubt whether it is up to ICANN to see to it that ‘non<br>
>>> commercial organizations’ can indeed ‘fairly and legally critique<br>
>>> and criticize dangerous products, unfair employment practices or<br>
>>> monopoly restrictions’. But my right, at least in the Netherlands,<br>
>>> to freedom of expression and in this case to ‘legally critique’<br>
>>> etc, is not dependent on the domain-name I use.<br>
>>><br>
>>> regards Bastiaan<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________ cc-humanrights<br>
>>> mailing list <a href="mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org">cc-humanrights@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> cc-humanrights mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org">cc-humanrights@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cc-humanrights mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org">cc-humanrights@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>