[gnso-rpm-wg] Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Sat Jul 8 18:30:41 UTC 2017


Hi folks,

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:50 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> FYI, ICANN published this last night:
>
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en
>
> and conceivably it might impact our work to some degree.  For those
> concerned about having multiple databases of protected names (i.e.
> TMCH, GIs, etc.), there seems to be multiple lists here for claims
> notices for IGOs and INGOs, and it's not clear if those are simply
> being incorporated into the existing TMCH.

There are just 2 more days left in the comment period, and there does
appear to be some overlap with our work (since there are new
protections for IGOs and INGOs, which appear to be in a separate list,
outside the TMCH). I just submitted my own comments, but ICANN is
moderating them all, so they don't yet appear in the public comments
archive.

Here's a copy of my own comments, in case others might be interested:

----- start of comment -----------------
George Kirikos Comments on Proposed Implementation of GNSO Consensus
Policy Recommendations for the Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in
All gTLDs

Submitted By: George Kirikos
Organization: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
Organization Website: http://www.leap.com/
Date: July 8, 2017

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed
Implementation of GNSO Consensus Policy Recommendations for the
Protection of IGO&INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs, as documented at:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en

1. The text in section 4.2 of the draft document should be made
clearer, to ensure that both transfers AND renewals are permitted.
i.e. the use of "or" vs "and" might be too ambiguous the way it's
currently worded.

I propose that you change the text from:

"....MUST permit renewal or transfer of the domain name."

to:

"...MUST permit renewals of the domain name and MUST permit transfers
of the domain name."

Notice how my proposed wording is unambiguous, and has only one
possible interpretation, namely that BOTH are permitted. Repetition of
the "MUST permit" helps immensely.  [conceivably a registry might
interpret the current language to permit one but not the other!]  I've
also made the terms "renewals" and "transfers" be in the plural form
(current language is singular), to ensure that multiple renewals and
multiple transfers must be allowed.

2. Draft section 4.4 is open to gaming:

"4.4. Red Cross, IOC and IGO Identifier List Changes: Names may be
added to or deleted from the Red Cross, IOC and IGO Identifier List
upon ten (10) calendar days notice from ICANN to Registry Operator.
ICANN will consult with the GAC in relation to proposed changes to the
names on the Red Cross, IOC and IGO Identifier List."

In particular, these organizations may in the future attempt to rename
themselves into their shorter acronyms (eliminating any reference to
their longer names), to gain protections that were explicitly NOT
obtained via the GNSO Consensus policy. Furthermore, other
organizations might be added that aren't "real" IGOs (the US
government has disputed whether all entities that have made Article
6ter notifications are real IGOs, for example, in their comments to
the IGO Curative Rights PDP; thus, it's open to debate whether there
is a broad consensus about the status of future organizations that
purport to be IGOs that seek to be on the list).

Thus, Draft section 4.4 should be amended such that any additions to
the list go through a more rigorous and public consultation, including
a public comment period (in conjunction with the GNSO too), not just
consultation with the GAC. That public comment period could then
ensure that shorter domain names that have multiple competing uses
(e.g. generic dictionary words, acronyms, etc.) are not added to the
list.

3. In draft section 5.1, the list of organizations in the list at:

https://community.icann.org/display/IIPIRT/INGO+Identifier+List+-+Draft+Page+for+IRT+Use+Only

includes generic terms such as "Rare" and "Mosaic" that can be used my
many organizations or individuals.

Furthermore, those INGOs may not have matching registered trademarks
in many cases, which list the specific goods and/or services and
geographic regions to which the trademarks would apply. Thus, I'm very
concerned that any claims notice (in 5.2) will have a chilling effect,
because the prospective registrant is not being provided sufficient
details with which to make an informed decision as to whether their
prospective use of the domain name would cause a real conflict with
the INGO. Thus, either the claims notice should be scrapped in its
entirely, or the list of organizations in the above link needs to be
supplemented with additional columns to (a) identify the countries
where those INGOs purport to operate and (b) identify what those INGOs
actually do! (i.e. the goods/services that might cause a conflict).
The text of Appendix A doesn't provide these details, either (it just
provides various contact details for the INGO). Appendix A doesn't
provide any details regarding how the INGOs use their purported
protected names.

In other words, there's a lot of work left to be done with respect to
the claims notices and right now it's not even close to being ready
for implementation, until those columns (and the relevant changes to
Appendix A) are added.

4. Draft section 5.3 is open to the same kind of gaming I identified
in my point #2 above. ICANN should consult with the GNSO *and* the
public before adding additional names to the list, to ensure that
shorter domain names that have multiple competing uses (e.g. generic
dictionary words, acronyms, etc.) are not added to the list.
----- end of comment -----------------

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list