Re: [council] Regarding Agenda item 3

[Mawaki Chango <ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Bruce,

Thank you so much for this comprehensive and very informative answer;
I was just not aware of the latest development (since Nov 2005) on
this issue.

Regards,

Mawaki 

--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hello Mawaki,
> 
> > 
> > Maybe this is relevant only for those who were not in Wellington:
> > could we have a couple of sentences as to why we're having 
> > item 3 on the agenda? thanks, Mawaki
> > 
> 
> Item 3 on the Agenda is a follow up to Item 4 of our Wellington
> meeting:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-29mar06.shtml.  This
> agenda
> item was in response to a request for discussion from Lucy Nichols
> of
> the IPC constituency.
> 
> More background material is available in the IPC constituency
> statement
> on new gTLDs:
> See Section 4(b) of:
> http://www.gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ipc-01feb06.pdf 
> 
> See also the webpage on "Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policies"
> at:
> http://www.icann.org/udrp/
> 
> The most relevant one is the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
> Policy (UDRP) available at:
> http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm 
> 
> As I understand it, the rationale for introducing the UDRP was that
> there are established laws for dealing with trademarks within
> nations,
> and that there are some treaties between nations around the topic
> of
> trademarks (ie Paris Convention 
> for the Protection of Industrial Property).   A complainant can go
> to
> court to resolve a trademark dispute, but this process is
> considered to
> be expensive and time-consuming.   The UDRP process was developed
> as an
> administrative proceeding to deal with the bad faith registration
> and
> use of trademarks as domain names.  A court of law can still
> overturn a
> UDRP decision.
> 
> The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which is an
> observer
> to the GAC, produced a report called the WIPO-II report, see:
>
http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process2/report/html/report.html#4
> 
> 
> The mandate for the report was:
> 
> "On June 28, 2000, the Director General of WIPO received a request
> from
> 19 of WIPO's Member States to develop, through a consultative
> process,
> recommendations on means of dealing with the "bad faith, abusive,
> misleading or unfair use," within the Internet domain name system
> (DNS),
> of identifiers that form the basis of certain naming systems used
> in the
> real or non-virtual world.[1]  The identifiers specified were:
> 
> - personal names; 
> 
> - International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for pharmaceutical
> substances; 
> 
> - the names of international intergovernmental organizations; 
> 
> - geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of
> source; and 
> 
> - trade names. "
> 
> 
> WIPO subsequently wrote to ICANN on 21 Feb 2003:
>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.ht
> m 
> And requested that ICANN considered developing a dispute resolution
> process to deal with protecting the names and acronyms of
> International
> Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) and country names (being one
> particular type of geographical identifier).
> 
> WIPO subsequently sent a letter to ICANN on 15 Nov 2005:
>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-to-cerf_twomey-15nov05.pdf
> 
> This letter essentially asks why ICANN has not "implemented" the
> recommendations from WIPO, supported by the GAC.
> 
> Now for ICANN to impose a dispute resolution mechanism that is
> binding
> on existing registrars and  registries - would require a Consensus
> Policy from the GNSO.
> 
> Note however that ICANN can still impose provisions on new gTLD
> registry
> agreements.  An example of which were some requirements for .info
> around
> country names.
> 
> 
> So in summary, the reason it is on the agenda is to see if there
> would
> be support for initiating a PDP to develop an administrative
> proceeding
> to deal with disputes around the names and acronyms of
> International
> Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs).
> 
> Note that the GNSO may well decide to delay work on such a PDP
> until
> work is completed on the priority areas of new gTLDs, IDNs, and
> WHOIS.
> 
> However as a starting point, I think the whole Council at least
> needs a
> briefing on this area, which is what I have asked for at the next
> Council meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
>  
> 
> 
>