<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi All,</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Under <b>Rights protection mechanisms</b></p>
<p>- <b>Protection of International Organization Names in all gTLDs
</b>- 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... <br>
</p>
<p>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... <br>
</p>
<p>- <b>Curative Rights protection for IGOs/INGOs </b>- 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 outside of the traditional UDRP and URS processes.
But Who Entertainment (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. <br>
</p>
<p>Please follow the work, now in its ending stages of the GNSO's
IGO/INGO Working Group --
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access">http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access</a></p>
<p><br>
- 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"? <br>
</p>
<p>Please join us in the Rights Protection Mechanism Working Group
for this discussion! <br>
</p>
<p>- 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! <br>
</p>
In light of the dangers, could these provisions be rephrased or
removed? <br>
Tx much for reading!<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/7/2016 9:49 AM, Niels ten Oever
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5756DEE2.2050803@article19.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
cc-humanrights mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cc-humanrights@icann.org">cc-humanrights@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-humanrights</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>