[NA-Discuss] Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Wendy, since you were (I think?) around at the time ALAC put forward  
that submission, the USG for Legal Affairs in concert with the heads  
of legal affairs at the other UN agencies had yet to put out the view  
expressed at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/ 
letter.pdf.

Have you taken that into account in your statement below - and if so,  
do you have references to contrary viewpoints which would support  
that view?

I'm not seeking here to challenge the validity of your view - the  
point I'm trying to make is that if the ALAC wishes to put forward  
the same position as it did in 2003 - since there has not yet been a  
discussion of this, I do not assume that it will automatically do so  
- it will be asked "but what about the letter from the USG of Legal  
Affairs at the UN?" and it seems to me that there should be a  
convincing answer to why the ALAC believes that he is wrong in his  
analysis.

On 17 Jun 2007, at 09:31, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I think additional exclusions are as illegitimate as I thought them in
> 2003.  <http://does-not-exist.org/mail-archives/council/msg00003.html>
>
> --Wendy
>
> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>> See below:
>>
>> On 16 Jun 2007, at 23:15, Danny Younger wrote:
>>
>>> One of the issues that we are facing is that IGOs are
>>> seeking often unwarranted "protection" for their
>>> acronyms (usually valuable 3 and 4 letter strings in
>>> all of the official UN languages) at the expense of
>>> registration opportunities for others.  Further, it
>>> appears that they also seek a dispute resolution
>>> process that will deny others the opportunity for
>>> judicial appeal or review (as IGOs specifically seek
>>> to safeguard the own immunity from national
>>> jurisdiction).
>>>
>>
>> A couple of points here:
>>
>> 1) IGOs are by treaty protected from action in national courts.
>> Whether or not you think that's right, that is the current state of
>> international law.
>>
>> 2) Per the USG for Legal Affairs' letter to ICANN, they do understand
>> that disputes about domain names involving IGO names can be subject
>> to a review that is not based upon court action in national courts.
>>
>>> The vast bulk of registrations that potentially
>>> conflict with IGO acronyms are registered by North
>>> American interests that have managed to secure a good
>>> number of 3, 4, or 5 letter strings.  While the issue
>>> indeed is global, should the IGOs succeed in obtaining
>>> enhanced protections there is a strong risk that North
>>> American interests will be the ones most impacted by
>>> such a development.
>>
>> The protection that they have stated that they seek is that
>> protection which they see as congruent with international law and the
>> PCT Article 6ter.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- 
>> lists.icann.org
>> ---
>> Draft MoU with ICANN:
>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>>
>> Draft Operating Principles:
>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>>
>> Draft Code of Conduct:
>> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
> phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361
> Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- 
> lists.icann.org
> ---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
> Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
> Draft Code of Conduct:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct