[At-Large] Is there a Need for a PDP to resolve the IOC/RCRC Issue?
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Sep 24 01:24:50 UTC 2012
Sala, I do not have the time to reply in detail to your long
communique, but a few points may be appropriate:
- It is not the GNSO but the IOC/RC Drafting Team that has issued a
consensus call.
- Regarding whether other IGOs (note IOC is not actaully an IGO, but
close) will later qualify for additional protections. I will not try
to guess at what the GAC may do at some later date, but so far they
have not put other groups in the same pot, despite some of their
members calling for such action. I call your attention to the
briefing paper that the Board used (among other things) to make its
original decision. Specifically, that there were not other
organizations that seemed to qualify under both international treaty
AND national laws. The paper which was redacted from the Board
briefing materials was released a while ago. See
www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/briefing-materials-unredacted-20jun11-en.pdf.
- Although the issue of IGOs is not new, even if the GNSO had acted
on the 2007 proposal to create a new (or modify an existing) dispute
resolution mechanism, we would likely still be in the same boat today
with regard to protecting names at the 2nd (or 1st) level. The
dispute mechanism, if it existed, would allow IGOs to fight
registrations that potentially conflicted (such as typo-squatting or
used the name in conjunction with other words). So that would have
protected the names after the fact as the UDRP does for
trademarks.ANd even if we now give protection against registering
exact strings of IGO names, there would still be a need for an
IGO-friendly dispute resolution mechanism.
Alan
More information about the At-Large
mailing list