[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Threshold Issues: Data sources for IGOs & INGOs, Registrants
George Kirikos
icann at leap.com
Mon Aug 11 22:51:41 UTC 2014
For the ECOSOC list, I believe a good starting point is at:
http://csonet.org/?menu=100
However, while there are 3900 NGOs listed at:
http://csonet.org/content/documents/e2013inf6.pdf
It's unclear how many of them are INGOs. A search on the page at:
http://esango.un.org/civilsociety/displayAdvancedSearch.do?method=search&sessionCheck=false
with "Geographic Scope" limited to "International" returns a list of 8390
matches, which is very odd, given that this number exceeds the 3900 NGOs
that were supposed to form the entire dataset!
Another dataset that might be of interest, by the way, is the .INT zone
file. There's an archive of it from 2012 in the Wikipedia article at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.int
(item #6), although perhaps someone at IANA can provide a more recent zone
file. Someone had already analyzed the 2012 list and produced a table of
organizations at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_.int_domain_names
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Petter Rindforth <
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
> Hi George and All,
>
> Thanks for this excellent input!
>
> As noticed during our meeting today, there are a number of topics to work
> on.
>
> *The WG should “at a minimum” consider:*
>
> · The differences between the UDRP and the URS;
>
> · The relevance of existing protection mechanisms in the Applicant
> Guidebook for the New gTLD Program;
>
> · The interplay between … this PDP and the forthcoming GNSO review
> of the UDRP, URS and other rights-protection mechanisms;
>
> · The distinctions (if any) between IGOs and INGOs for purposes of
> this PDP;
>
> · The potential need to distinguish between a legacy gTLD and a
> new gTLD launched under the New gTLD Program;
>
> · The potential need to clarify whether the URS is a Consensus
> Policy binding on ICANN’s contracted parties;
>
> · The need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use
> curative processes; and
>
> · The relevance of specific legal protections under international
> legal instruments and various national laws for IGOs and certain INGOs
> (namely, the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee).
>
> · Review the deliberations of the 2003 President’s Joint Working
> Group on the 2001 WIPO report as a possible starting point;
>
> · Consider whether subsequent developments such as the
> introduction of the New gTLD Program and the URS may mean that prior ICANN
> community recommendations on IGO dispute resolution are no longer
> applicable;
>
> · Examine whether or not similar justifications and amendments
> should apply to both the UDRP and URS, or if each procedure should be
> treated independently and/or differently;
>
> · Reach out to existing ICANN dispute resolution service providers
> for the UDRP and URS as well as experienced UDRP panelists ..
>
> · Determine what (if any) are the specific different
> considerations (including without limitation qualifying requirements,
> authentication criteria and appeal processes) that should apply to IGOs and
> INGOs;
>
> · Conduct research on applicable international law regarding
> special privileges and immunities for IGOs
>
> · Conduct research on the extent to which IGOs and INGOs already
> have trademarks and might be covered, in whole or in part, by existing UDRP
> and URS proceedings;
>
> · Conduct research on the number and list of IGOs currently
> protected under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of
> Intellectual Property;
>
> · Conduct research on the number and list of INGOs included on the
> ECOSOC list in consultative status;
>
> · Consider whether or not there may be practicable alternatives,
> other than amending the UDRP and URS, that can nonetheless provide adequate
> curative rights protections for IGOs and INGOs, such as the development of
> a specific, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure modeled on the
> UDRP and URS, and applicable only to IGOs and/or INGOs;
>
> · Consider a very clear definition of the mission of the IGOs, its
> scope of operations and the regions and countries in which it operates; the
> goal here being to provide a context for the IGO or INGO similar to the
> scope and terms of a trademark with its International Class and clear
> description of goods and services;
>
> · Consider recommendations that incorporate fundamental principles
> of fair use, acknowledge free speech and freedom of expression, and balance
> the rights of all to use generic words and other terms and acronyms in
> non-confusing ways; and
>
> · Bear in mind that any recommendations relating to the UDRP and
> URS … may be subject to further review under the GNSO’s forthcoming PDP to
> review all the rights protection mechanisms …
>
>
> Some of these should be rather easy to clarify/list, etc so that we then
> can proceed with the more difficult parts.
>
> I suggest that we initially identify those topics that are
> lists/reasearch/identification, in order to give us a good base for our
> work on the other topics.
>
> If you have special experience and/or contacts related to one or more of
> the points above, please step forward and let us know.
>
>
> Best,
> Petter
>
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Sweden
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> www.fenixlegal.eu
>
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
> to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client
> privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this
> message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy
> or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it
> immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
> Thank you
>
> 11 augusti 2014, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> skrev:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Just to followup on our conference call, it might be useful if we had
> access to a database of IGOs and INGOs, which we could then survey in order
> to obtain primary research data. This could then be used to help answer
> threshold questions (such as whether the data indicates that the scale of
> any domain name abuse is sufficient to warrant changes to existing curative
> RPMs, etc).
>
> One link I had posted in the chat room was for:
>
> http://www.uia.org/yearbook
>
> which is a database of over 66,000 IGOs and INGOs. However, it costs
> $3,030/yr for an annual subscription (and it's unclear whether that
> database can be shared amongst multiple members of the working group).
>
> WIPO itself maintains a public Article 6ter database at:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/6ter/
>
> (simply clicking "Search" without putting any data into the fields yields
> 3027 records)
>
> Similarly, doing a search at the USPTO, via:
>
> http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp
>
> (and then click Trademark Search, Basic Word Mark Search (New User), and
> then perform a search of "6ter" with a field of "ALL") provides a list of
> 735 such marks registered in the USA.
>
> TMView is another tool for researching marks in many countries, see:
>
> https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/welcome.html
>
> Canada's TM database is searchable via:
>
> http://cipo.gc.ca/
>
> Of course, it is insufficient to simply survey IGOs and INGOs. We should
> also be reaching out to domain name registrants, to get their input/data on
> relevant questions (e.g. have they been accused of cybersquatting, have
> they received C&Ds, UDRPs, URS proceedings, lawsuits, whether those
> accusations had merit, how they used their short domain names, legal
> expenditures, etc.).
>
> There are tools to extract the contact data from the public WHOIS records
> on a bulk basis to form a data set, although I don't use them myself (as a
> domain name registrant, I regularly receive bulk mailings from others,
> though, who've obtained the contact info via WHOIS).
>
> There are tools like UDRPSearch.com to find historical UDRP cases
> involving IGOs, INGOs, and registrants of short acronyms, etc. PACER exists
> to find US court cases, although perhaps some of the law firms
> participating in this working group (or ICANN itself) have access to
> superior paid tools, like Westlaw, Lexis Nexis, etc. CanLII.org is a public
> database of Canadian court cases.
>
> I'm guessing most folks here are already familiar with sites like
> DomainTools.com or ZFBot.com to do research on domain names matching
> various strings.
>
> The OpenCorporates site maintains an index of corporations in numerous
> jurisdictions, see:
>
> http://opencorporates.com/
>
> Perhaps others have ideas on additional sources of data that might be
> helpful to this working group.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20140811/d5cb625f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list