[ALAC] Red Cross/IOC - Questions for Consensus Call - Reply due by September 26th

[Alan Greenberg]

At 21/09/2012 03:08 AM, Hong Xue wrote:
> > 5) Suggest an alternate robust method to protect non-trademarked
> > public-interest names.
> >
>
>Under FAG, IOC, RC and any other IGOs can file as many objections as
>possible based on their IGO legal rights against TLD applications
>identical or confusingly similar to their name(s). But no DRP
>mechanism available for IGO names against 2nd-level domain name
>registration, and all protection measures at 2nd-level are for
>trademark, which makes the IGO names' protection unbalance at
>top-level and second-level. If a dispute resolution policy could be
>developed to enable IGOs to complain against abusive registrations at
>second level, it would be good idea. But I object to changing the
>current policy at this round and setting out a priorly-reserved name
>list, let alone merely singling out 2 IGOs for special treatment.
>
>Hong

The URS is a bit wider than that, as it also protects a name "that is 
specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time 
the URS complaint is filed." - (Section 1.2.6.1 of the URS section of 
the Applicant Guidebook).

In 2007, IGOs petitioned ICANN to create a dispute resolution 
mechanism that would apply to them. After a lot of work, the 
recommendation (from both staff and GNSO) was that nothing be done, 
largely based on the belief that the issue would be well covered by 
the new gTLD process. Something that I would claim did not happen and 
which is the root of a lot of the current problems we are now facing 
with IGOs (and the IOC which is arguably an NGO I believe).

Alan