Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Alex and all assembly members,

  The GAC web page is http://www.noie.gov.au
  The contacts link for the GAC is:
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/contacts.htm
Donna AUstin is the GAC Secretariat, which BTW is the only contact
with and E-Mail address listed.  One wonders how stakeholders
are to contact their GAC representative?
The "Accredited Representatives" Contact link is:
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac representatives.htm
Which is currently broken Message: "The parameter is incorrect." when
trying to link the this page.

  Given all this, one must also wonder if the GAC cannot maintain their
Web pages and does not provide a E-Mail address contact for their
"Accredited Representatives", than how the hell can they really be
given the respect for their opinions by the stakeholders that they
represent?

  I also don't recall my GAC representative soliciting my opinion on any
issue that effects me, nor can I presently provide any comments
to MY GAC representative presently via E-Mail or any other
form.  Could this be by design?  I hope not.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
> 26 October 2001
> http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oct01.htm
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> 1. Background and Introduction
>
> In August 2001, GAC became aware of anomalies in registration
> practices during the .info sunrise period with respect to country
> names. Accordingly, GAC in Montevideo considered the question and
> published conclusions with respect to country names in its
> Communiqué.[1] The ICANN Board supported the GAC recommendations
> in principle and decided that such names should be registered by
> the Registry to ICANN for the time being unless registered by a
> valid trademark holder.[2] The Board has also initiated an Action
> Plan to address other aspects of the issue and to report before
> the March 2002 Accra meeting.[3]
>
> These recent developments have given rise to some discussion in
> the ICANN Community, notably on the DNSO lists. The Names Council,
> on 11 October 2001 adopted a Resolution about this.[4]
>
> GAC has comments and reservations about the Names Council
> resolution. In the interests of a transparent and informed
> discussion, and hopefully with a view to a resolution of any
> outstanding difficulties, GAC submits this commentary for the
> consideration of ICANN and all other parties concerned.
>
> GAC would also recall that this is not the first time that it has
> addressed this issue. In its November 2000 Marina del Rey opinion
> on new gTLDs,[5] GAC stated that:
>
>   3.5 The GAC discussed geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic
>   concepts in relation to new gTLDs. These discussions will
>   continue in subsequent meetings of the GAC.
>
>   3.6 The GAC notes that WIPO Member States have asked WIPO to
>   consider and make recommendations   on issues related to bad
>   faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of personal names,
>   International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
>   Substances, names of international intergovernmental
>   organizations, geographical indications, indications of
>   source or geographical terms, and trade names.
>
>   3.6.1 WIPO's report may lead to the development of policies
>   in these areas. In these circumstances, the registration
>   policies for new gTLDs, as approved by ICANN, could make
>   reference to the WIPO 2nd Domain Names Process and provide
>   for ready adoption of any ICANN policies resulting from this
>   process. Accordingly, should registration policies initially
>   implemented by new gTLDs allow for registrations of names in
>   any of these categories, registrants should be made aware
>   that the adoption of such policies may have potential impact
>   on registrations.
>
> Had this advice been taken at the time, any registrant in the new
> TLDs registering a name in any of the categories of names
> addressed by the WIPO report would have done so in the full
> knowledge that a policy development process arising from the WIPO
> report could put at risk those registrations. GAC's attention was
> drawn to the registration of large numbers of country names in
> .info during the sunrise period and upon further investigation
> it was evident that a large number of these registrations had not
> met the necessary criteria. In the circumstances, and in light of
> its previous statements, the GAC advised ICANN to take steps to
> reserve country names in .info and assign them to the
> corresponding governments and public authorities, at their request.
>
> Such action provides an option, within a small part of the DNS,
> for many countries that have expressed serious concerns about
> this issue. The GAC's recommendation in Montevideo is a focused
> response to an issue that is of great concern to many countries.
>
> GAC is also aware that many governments that may have a concern
> about the registration of their country names in .info are not
> yet aware of these developments. Furthermore, registration of a
> domain name tends to create expectations of continuing use by
> Registrants. In the circumstances, the GAC's advice sought to
> avoid conflict between such expectations and the expressed
> interest of a number of countries to ensure that country names
> are used in the interests of the general public in the country
> concerned.
>
> 2. The WIPO-2 Report
>
> The recent WIPO resolution[6] mandates special sessions of the
> Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT)[7] to address each aspect
> of the WIPO-2 Report.[8] The SCT is asked to submit a report by
> September 2002.
>
> 3. The GAC Recommendation
>
> Following thorough discussion, the GAC Communiqué addresses
> primarily country names in .info according to ISO 3166-1.[9] In
> developing its response, the GAC consulted with both ICANN and
> Afilias with a view to ensuring a feasible and workable solution.
>
> >From the point of view of a number of governments and public
> authorities, this is a minimum acceptable position and leaves
> open a range of related issues to be addressed in the future.
>
> 4. Names Council Resolution
>
> It follows that resolution that has been adopted by the Names
> Council raises several specific problems from GAC's point of
> view. In general, the debate within the DNSO appears not to
> recognise the major effort made by GAC members to circumscribe
> and limit their requirement for reservation of the names of
> countries in .info according to ISO 3166-1, as well as actively
> seeking cooperation with Afilias regarding the approach..
>
> The GAC, provides the following comments in relation to aspects
> of the Names Council's resolution:
>
>     1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution
>     should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem
>     that is not inherent to dot info.
>
> The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot
> info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN
> Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response
> to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the
> Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation
> be applied to any other gTLD.
>
>     2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications
>     for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind
>     GAC seeks.
>
> The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during
> the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the
> GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their
> registration process of names in .info and as such, there are
> no retrospective implications for suppliers and users.
>
> It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns
> about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue
> in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended
> that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the
> possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with
> registrants.
>
>     3. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for
>     governments to seek solutions to the problems perceived by the
>     GAC is the existing forum of such intellectual property
>     expertise, namely the inter-governmental specialised UN agency,
>     the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) combined
>     with the existing forum for representing the internet community
>     in policy making, the DNSO, and other relevant stakeholders.
>
> WIPO is a member of the GAC and as such, the GAC is aware of the
> work being undertaken by WIPO in this area. WIPO has referred the
> question back to its member governments who have decided on the
> immediate follow-up.
>
> It must also be acknowledged that as the domain name system operates
> in a dynamic environment, the GAC is aware that it may be called on
> to provide advice in specific areas that may precede the work of
> inter-governmental organisations such as WIPO. In this vein, ICANN
> is to be commended for taking action, as it has done.
>
> In response to the request to the ICANN Board:
>
>     (a) To recommend to the GAC that it reconsiders its recommendation
>     in this matter in the light of the work already in progress at
>     WIPO following the recent WIPO report 'The Recognition of Rights
>     and the use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System; and
>
>     (b) To encourage the GAC and all interested parts of the ICANN
>     structure to contribute to WIPO's work in this respect.
>
> The GAC supports the notion that all interested parts of the ICANN
> structure contribute to WIPO's work not only in respect to geographic
> identifiers , but in relation to the work of WIPO more generally.
> Many members of the GAC are also Member States of WIPO and as such
> are well-informed on the work being undertaken.
>
>     (c) to invite the Names Council to participate in the discussion
>     group on ISO 3166-1 names.
>
> The GAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue with the DNSO on
> the understanding that the interested parties, including governments
> can participate effectively.
>
> In conclusion, the GAC would welcome further discussion with the DNSO
> and Names Council members in order to clarify the arguments on both
> parts. However, the GAC disagrees with some of the arguments and
> conclusions in the Names Council Resolution of 11 October 2001. GAC
> members will be glad to participate in the Action Plan recently
> announced by ICANN in this respect.
>
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Chair
>
> 26 October 2001
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm
>
> [2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm
>
> [3] http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm
>
> [4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00202.html
>
> [5] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/new-tld-opinion-16nov00.htm
>
> [6] Assembly of the Member States of the WIPO, September 24 to
>     October 3 2001. Decision on the Report of the Second WIPO Internet
>     Domain Name process.
>
> [7] Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs
>     and Geographical Indications (SCT).
>
> [8] Names of inter-governmental organisations (IGO), Geographical
>     Names, International Non-Proprietary Names of pharmaceuticals
>     (INNs) and Personal names.
>
> [9] As interpreted by ICANN and in official languages and in English.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html