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

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Mon Jul 10 14:03:02 UTC 2017

Hello George and everyone,

Just to clarify – the proposed implementation for which there is an ongoing public comment period, as noted by George, relates to GNSO Consensus Policy for certain specific names associated with international governmental and non-governmental organizations. This was from a GNSO PDP where these specific recommendations were approved by the ICANN Board in 2014, and the current implementation phase touches on mechanisms (such as the TMCH) that may be used to perform the required notifications.

From a policy perspective, staff does not currently believe there will be an overlap with this RPM PDP, although observations on how the TMCH mechanism functions can of course be helpful.

If you are interested, the specific names to be protected by the IGO-INGO Consensus Policy to date are:

  *   Full names of specific INGOs in English only: reservation at the top-level for INGOs with United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs General Consultative status and protection with a notification service at the second-level for INGOs with United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs General or Special Consultative status.
  *   Full names of specific IGOs (as specified in the list approved by the GAC) in up to two (2) languages: reservation at the top- and second-level.
  *   Specific names of Red Cross Movement (viz. Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal, Red Lion & Sun in 6 UN languages): reservation at the top- and second-level.
  *   Specific names from the International Olympic Committee (viz. Olympic and Olympiad in UN6 languages plus German, Greek, and Korean): reservation at the top- and second-level.



On 7/8/17, 14:30, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:

    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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_igo-2Dingo-2Dprotection-2D2017-2D05-2D17-2Den&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=rsUAtH-Qw3IXkDaa9CtRWNUEbRL1CzxYbBYwq2_lriU&s=m12otw0JrXoi4UvPVCLxKgLEP1q3kiLjue4eLRq1nTk&e=


    > 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


    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: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=rsUAtH-Qw3IXkDaa9CtRWNUEbRL1CzxYbBYwq2_lriU&s=-wh6tlPiSmxbx0uz9d14cggRLTGOhYTuytiHVnxvsSU&e=

    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:


    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."


    "...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


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


    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 -----------------


    George Kirikos




    gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

    gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170710/6304cdd4/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list