GNSO response to ccNSO GAC Issues report on IDNs

[zfreud]

For all you policy wonks out there:

GNSO response to ccNSO GAC Issues report on IDNs

http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/docn8w20uTBGN.doc

Verisign vs CNNIC

Round 5

"In the case of the GNSO, gTLD registrants fund well over 90% of ICANN’s budget. It would be very unfair if the gTLD registrants funded activities that worked against their own needs."

"very unfair?!" now that's strong arming them. perhaps they should throw a tantrum and refuse to play in any IDN games.

[bwhhisc]

QUOTE:
ICANN has been criticized heavily for taking too long to implement IDN TLDs. Those of us familiar with ICANN understand that such criticism is directed at all of us because ICANN is not the legal corporation nor the staff that supports that corporation but rather those that are a part of the bottom-up processes upon which ICANN the corporation is based. Recognizing this, we all need to assume responsibility for the long delays in implementing IDN TLDs and do everything in our power to expedite the process going forward.

Regardless of how much rationalizing we can do to explain why it has taken so long, we are near the point where reasons for further delays are nearly gone. END QUOTE Well said, now lets get on with the show...

INTERESTING QUOTE:
6. The situation of IDN ccTLDs becoming de facto “IDN gTLDs”, as has happened with some ASCII ccTLDs historically, should be avoided. In those exceptional cases where this is not possible, any such IDN ccTLDs must be governed by a contract that contains similar conditions to those contained in gTLD contracts. That is, the selection/deployment criteria (e.g., technical, financial, operational, etc. for IDN gTLD policies) for an IDN ccTLD should be similar to those for an IDN gTLD so that there is no unfair advantage. It should be noted that, in the absence of a contractual requirement, there is no way to enforce the criteria. END QUOTE

VERY INTERESTING.... "if IDN ccTLDs are ready for deployment before IDN gTLDs there should be an equivalent objection mechanism available for the rest of the community" (seems like a bit of a free pass for Verisign)

TO QUOTE:

Question: What precedence should be given to ccTLDs in the IDN implementation process?

GNSO response: There should be no formal precedence given to IDN ccTLDs over IDN gTLDs or vice versa. In the event that IDN gTLDs are ready before IDN ccTLDs, the interests of the IDN community should be protected by liberal use of the objection mechanism proposed in the new gTLD process (see reference 5 above). Likewise if IDN ccTLDs are ready for deployment before IDN gTLDs there should be an equivalent objection mechanism available for the rest of the community. The GNSO worked diligently and openly for over a year and a half to develop procedures for the introduction of new gTLDs including IDN gTLDs. The IDN gTLD process should not be put on hold unless there are technical reasons for doing so (i.e., the IDNA protocol revision is not yet finished). END QUOTE

STATEMENT OF THE
NON-COMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY (NCUC)
20 FEBRUARY 2008

ALTERNATIVE OPINION AND STATEMENT ON ITEM 10 OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE GNSO COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE CCNSO-GAC ISSUES REPORT ON IDN ISSUES:
“CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR STRINGS MUST BE AVOIDED.”

This statement address the wording of item 10 of the Executive Summary of the GNSO Comments in Response to the ccNSO-GAC Issues Report on IDN Issues (the “GNSO Comments”) , as it presently states that “confusingly similar strings must be avoided.”

This wording was previously used by the GNSO Council at its “Policy recommendations and implementation guidelines for the introduction of new top-level domains”. At the final draft report, Recommendation no. 02 states that: “Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain.” For reference purposes, a footnote relates the “confusingly similar” expression with item 4(a) of the UDRP.

We object to the adoption of the misleading wording “confusingly similar” in the GNSO Comments, grounded in the following arguments:

1. Expansion of trademark rights to a broader field of elements

In adopting the “confusingly similar” expression, as it is used by item 4(a) of the UDRP, the GNSO Comments expand the trademark logic of protection to a wider range of elements, especially in what concerns with domain names and the way countries can refer to themselves through domain names.

In adopting this kind of wording, the GNSO Comments would be equating domain names with trademarks as properties that could be legally protectable. Such expansion of trademark logics to other elements, such as domain names, not only broader the scope of ICANN authority, as addressed bellow, but also is incorrect in legal terms.

In her “Legal Briefing Paper on GNSO Recommendations for Domain Name Policy”, American University Law Professor Christine Haight Farley stated that “trademarks are legally protected intellectual property because it is believed that the commercial use of a mark by another that is likely to cause confusion would injure consumers. Trademarks are legally protectable intellectual property also because their owners have developed valuable goodwill in the marks. Neither of these conditions of legal protection apply in the case of domain names.”

Non-commercial users of domain names will be unfairly discouraged from using trademarks. Even though a trademark law analysis would permit a broad range of confusingly similar domain names that are used for non-commercial purposes, the GNSO’s recommendation would not. Perhaps a better policy choice might be to look to the private sector and open source software developers to create new software that can better prevent confusion caused by similar words, such as new fonts.
END QUOTE

[bwhhisc]

Anyone got a good read on this report?

Up for over a day and at this moment only 3 people have looked at this thread. :o

[thegenius1]

Anyone got a good read on this report?

Up for over a day and at this moment only 3 people have looked at this thread. :o

Bill more then 3 people have viewed the thread , since IDNF came back up it is not counting the amount of views threads are getting. Its only adding to the views when a person responds.

[bwhhisc]

Bill more then 3 people have viewed the thread , since IDNF came back up it is not counting the amount of views threads are getting. Its only adding to the views when a person responds.
Thx Genius...I notice that now. There is some interesting information here, plus a good few trump cards for Verisign it seems.

[Steve Clarke]

Come on Verisign.....put in for your .com equivalents NOW!

[Drewbert]

Who is the rocket scientist at the GNSO that can't create documents in an open format?