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

[Hong Xue]

On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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).


Hi, I am afraid that stipulation refers to "trademarks" not registered but
protected by statute or treaty, which consistent with TMCH. Anyway URS is a
provisionary measure that cannot really solve igo problem.

Btw, IOC is a igo by treaty but RC is specially defined by treaty for its
neutral humanitarian operation.




Hong


-- 
Professor Dr. Hong Xue
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China