{"id":758,"date":"2013-04-03T15:40:12","date_gmt":"2013-04-03T07:40:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/?p=758"},"modified":"2013-04-03T15:40:12","modified_gmt":"2013-04-03T07:40:12","slug":"cdnua-aggregative-comments-on-icann-policies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/?p=758","title":{"rendered":"CDNUA Aggregative Comments on ICANN Policies"},"content":{"rendered":"

IIPL\/CDNUA has made substantive contribution to the ICANN policy making, although it is not easy to penetrate the exclusive west-centric club in eco-system of civil society. Although civil society from the South often feels that their voice are bounced by the sound of silence, they are still engaged and talking.<\/p>\n

Here are the aggregation of the comments made to a variety of policy issues.<\/p>\n

1. New gTLDs: Public Interest Commitments & Dispute Resolution Policy (04\/13)<\/p>\n

Following to our call on March 11, I made further research on PICs. It\u00a0seems comment period on this PICs mechanism generally has expired by
\nFebruary 26 and PICs mechanism has been put into implementation\u00a0already. I cannot seem any chance to change or improve it, at least in
\nthis round. So it does not make much sense to draft a statement on\u00a0this.<\/p>\n

What I discovered interestingly is that all new gTLD applicants should\u00a0submit their PICs by March 5.<\/p>\n

There are 3 sections in the PICs.<\/p>\n

Section 1 states that the new registry operator will only use\u00a0registrars that have signed the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement\u00a0(currently under negotiation).<\/p>\n

Section 2 is for applicants to indicate which parts of their\u00a0applications they will incorporate into their registry agreements as\u00a0binding ommitments.<\/p>\n

Section 3 is for applicants to identify additional commitments that\u00a0are not part of their applications but which the applicants intend to\u00a0incorporate as binding commitment into their registry agreements.<\/p>\n

If an applicant did not submit its PICs, only Section 1 applied to its\u00a0base agreement by default. To my memory, when RALOs considered those\u00a0objection statements, some applicants urgently provided their PICs on\u00a0either Section 2 or both Section 2 and 3 to appeal to RALOs’ support.
\nBut those so-called commitments, if later than March 5, may only be\u00a0rhetoric to at-large but not “valid” PICs to ICANN.<\/p>\n

The current status is ICANN allows the public to comments on the PICs\u00a0that have already been submitted by March 16. So we could also look at
\nany specific applications and consider whether or not to comment on\u00a0their sufficiency and effectiveness of securing public interest.<\/p>\n

PIC DRP, which modeled on the PDDRP for trademarks, is a flawed system, in which ICANN struggled between its dual roles as the TLD regulator and at the meantime the contractual party with the TLD operators. Although, understandably, ICANN has no regulatory authority except through the contractual relationship with TLD operators, it is not a fix to mix both rules up. As a contractual party, ICANN should enforce the contract without relying the third party’s complaint. As a regulator, ICANN should be able to judge whether a breach of commitment occurs without outsourcing the assessment to a DRP proceeding, which is both costly and with high bars. We can only hope that the compliance against new gTLDs’ PIC would not be diluted by this new DRP proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. New gTLDs: Strawman Solution (04\/13)<\/p>\n

I had expressed concerns on the trademark “derivations” before, but it\u00a0is okay that my minority view was not accepted. Now I want to speak
\nloud against the 50 variations to include “translation” or\u00a0“transliteration” of any mark although its “abuse” has been recorded\u00a0in previous proceedings. There would be ridiculous results\u00a0particularly where these marks are generic terms, like APPLE, SUN or\u00a0DOVE. If taking into account the same or similar marks registered in\u00a0different class and country (like Havana Club registered in both US\u00a0and Cuba by different parties), 50 variations are simply opening a can\u00a0of worm. \u00a0Even if this is merely for sunrise and claims, the chaos\u00a0would be unimagineable.<\/p>\n

3. New gTLDs: IPC\/BC Proposal for Additional RPMs (11\/13\/12)<\/p>\n

I noted IPC\/BC’s proposal at\u00a0IGF week and had a sense that they were making substantive demands to\u00a0expand the RMPs that have been written down. Your message actually\u00a0confirmed my guessing.<\/p>\n

I agree we separate “implementation” from “policy-making” and subject\u00a0the latter to PDP rather a shortcut at such late stage. But I also
\nconcern that “implementation” can be used to shield substantive\u00a0decisions on policies, with limited\/restricted community involvement
\nand in very short period of time. Except 5-6 (7 is indeed\u00a0imcomprehensible), all involves substantive policy choices or even new
\npolicy decisions. To me, it should all be subject to PDP or deserve at\u00a0least a decent period for cross-community inputs. Had the Brussels one
\nbeen announced? And had at-large been able to involve in it?<\/p>\n

4. New gTLDs: URS (10\/22\/12)<\/p>\n

As commented at At-Large new GTLD WG meeting in Toronto,\u00a0we are against the reopening of policy disussion on URS. But now it
\nseems not only revision to the current policy but complete redrafting\u00a0could be enabled under the name “implementation”. What do they want to
\n“draft” in the Drafting Team? Is the team cross-constituency or solely\u00a0for GNSO? Normally implementation plan is completed by staff. Why is
\nit referred back to GNSO?<\/p>\n

Neither URS nor TMCH covers marks other than trademarks\/services\u00a0(registered, protected by international law or by special domestic
\nlaw). They are all purely trademark measures.\u00a0UDRP only covers trademarks or service marks. New gTLD trademark\u00a0measures (URS or TMCH) covers: registered marks, marks protected by\u00a0internaitonal law (such as Parma Ham) or marks protected by special\u00a0decrees (such as Champagnes).<\/p>\n

5. New gTLDs: IGOs\/INGOs (09\/13)<\/p>\n

As I stated before, a broad “IOs” concept is adopted (rather than\u00a0sticking to exclusive IGOs) and the legal nature of RoC or IOC is\u00a0clarified.<\/p>\n

The Report is on “protection of names and acronyms of certain\u00a0international organizations including, International Governmental\u00a0Organizations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations such as the\u00a0Red Cross\/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic\u00a0Committee (IOC).”<\/p>\n

Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as\u00a0possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications
\nidentical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP\u00a0mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name
\nregistration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for\u00a0trademark, which makes the IGO names’ protection unbalance at\u00a0top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be\u00a0developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at\u00a0second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the\u00a0current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name\u00a0list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.<\/p>\n

I made a careful study on the legal status of both organizations, and\u00a0find that both IOC and RC are actually international Non-governmental
\norganizations (NGOs). So, if there could be a holistic solution (DRP\u00a0or else), it should cover all International Organizations (IOs),\u00a0including international NGOs and IGOs. If we stick to the term IGOs,\u00a0it could be no solution for IOC or RC at all.<\/p>\n

\n
6. New gTLDs: closed generic strings (02\/13)\"\"<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

I think ICANN is going back to deal with the key issue of whether to\u00a0interprete or monitor or control the registration policy (who can be\u00a0the registrants and what can be registered as domain names) \u00a0of a new\u00a0TLD committed in the application. This does not only involve “closed
\ngeneric” TLD strings but many other issues, such as protection of\u00a0IGO\/INGO names, management of IDN variants and maintenance of the
\n“closeness” of the community-based TLDs. Currently, all the\u00a0application committments are yet to be included in the delegation\u00a0agreement and thus will not be subject to the “compliance” mechanism.<\/p>\n

Should ICANN change this Laissez-faire approach, generally or specific\u00a0for closed generic TLD strings? I think ICANN should have a holistic\u00a0view.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IIPL\/CDNUA has made substantive contribution to the ICANN policy making, although it is not easy to penetrate the exclusive west-centric club in eco-system of civil society. Although civil society from the South often feels that their voice are bounced by the sound of silence, they are still engaged and talking. Here are the aggregation of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1,6,4,8,9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=758"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":759,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/758\/revisions\/759"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=758"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=758"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/wiki.iipl.org.cn\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=758"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}