Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s) and
RALO(s)

Call for
Comments		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote
Announcement 		Vote OpenVote
Reminder		Vote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
11.10.2013Draft Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDsAdopted
12Y, 0N, 0A 

Alan Greenberg (NARALO)

22.10.201325.10.2013
12:00 		25.10.2013
23:00		25.10.2013
23:00		31.10.201301.11.2013
23:00		01.11.2013Mary Wong
policy-staff@icann.org
 		AL-ALAC-ST-1113-01-01-EN
Comment / Reply Periods (*)
Comment Open Date: 
20 September 2013
Comment Close Date: 
11 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Reply Open Date: 
12 October 2013
Reply Close Date: 
1 November 2013 - 23:59 UTC
Important Information Links
Public Comment Announcement
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
View Comments Submitted
Brief Overview
Originating Organization: 
GNSO
Categories/Tags: 
  • Policy Processes
Purpose (Brief): 

The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Policy Development Process Working Group is tasked with addressing the issue of Protecting the identifiers of certain International Governmental Organizations ("IGOs") and International Non-Governmental Organizations ("INGOs") in all gTLDs and they have published its draft Final Report for public comment.

Current Status: 

The GNSO Policy Development Process Working Group ("PDP WG") on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs has published this draft Final Report and is soliciting community input on the policy recommendations currently under consideration by the PDP WG. This draft Final Report has also been submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 September 2013.

Next Steps: 

Following the review of and taking into account the public comments received during this Public Forum, the PDPWG will modify the report and/or policy recommendations as outlined in the draft Final Report and that agreed upon by WG members prior to submission to the GNSO Council.

Staff Contact: 
Mary Wong
Email Staff Contact
Detailed Information
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 

In its draft Final Report the PDP WG provides background information on the issues related to the protection for certain International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) (including the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement ("RCRC") and International Olympic Committee ("IOC")) identifiers. The report also includes a summary of the Working Group's deliberations with respect to the issues defined in the WG's Charter.

Most importantly, the Recommendations section of this draft Final Report presents a list of proposed policy recommendations currently being considered by the PDP WG, for the protection of certain IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs. The proposed policy recommendations for the protection of certain IGO and INGO identifiers presented in this draft Final Report are delineated by the organizations seeking protection and within each sub-set, both top and second level protections are considered. Current WG consensus levels, per theGNSO Working Group Guidelines, are also included with each recommendation.

The IGO-INGO WG is specifically looking for input to Section 5 of this draft Final Report:

  • Recommendations per Organization (RCRC, IOC, IGO, INGO), Sections 5.1 to 5.4
  • General recommendations, Section 5.5
  • Principles of implementation on incumbent gTLDs, Section 5.6
  • Exception procedures, Section 5.7
Section II: Background: 

For a detailed background and history of the issue on whether to protect certain IGO and INGO identifiers including the RCRC and IOC prior to the initiation of this PDP, please see the Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs [PDF, 674 KB]. The Issue Report was initiated as a result of a recommendation by the GNSO Drafting Team formed to provide a GNSO Council response to the Board and GAC on the protection of IOC and RCRC names in new gTLDs. After community review, the scope of the Final GNSO Issue Report included an evaluation of whether to protect the names of both international government and non-government organizations at the top level and second level in all gTLDs.

At its October meeting last year, the GNSO Council considered the Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs, and approved a motion to initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") for the protection of certain international organization names and acronyms in all gTLDs. The Working Group ("WG") was formed on 31 October 2012 and the WG Charter was approved by the GNSOCouncil on 15 November 2012. The decision was taken in this context to subsume the issues of the IOC and Red Cross Red Crescent designations and names under the new PDP WG process.

As part of its deliberations, the PDP WG was required under the WG Charter to consider the following questions:

  1. Whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for the names and acronyms of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) protected by international law and multiple domestic statutes, International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC), and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In deliberating this issue, the WG should consider the following elements:
    • Quantifying the Entities to be Considered for Special Protection
    • Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/National Laws forIGO, RCRC and IOC Names
    • Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of International Organization Names
    • Distinguishing Any Substantive Differences Between the RCRC and IOC From Other International Organizations
  2. If there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the PDP WG is expected to develop policy recommendations for such protections. Specifically, the PDP WG should:
    • Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if not, develop specific recommendations for the appropriate special protections for these names.
    • Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections for the names and acronyms of all other qualifying international organizations.
Section III: Document and Resource Links: 

Draft Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs [PDF, 676 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information: 

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

This ALAC Statement is intended to serve the triple purpose of being a reply to the Public Comment on the Draft Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs, an ALAC Minority Statement to be attached to the Final Report (modified as necessary based on the content of the Final Report compared to the draft version), and a Statement of Advice to the ICANN Board.

The ALAC has made a number of statements on the protection of IGO and INGO names, and has participated actively in all GNSO activities related to this topic. Our views specific outcomes of this PDP are at the end of this statement.

Given the wide range of views expressed in this paper, and noting that nothing presented here has received the unanimous support of the PDP Working Group, the ALAC would like to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the Recommendations as well as identify the principles that have guided its positions.

The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of “Recommendations” reflecting widely disparate levels of consensus. Not a single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full Consensus), a level of support that is more typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many, the WG views are Divergent [Footnote: In one case, the views were represented as being “divergent” where in fact there was a strong consensus that the Recommendation NOT be implemented.]. It is unclear to the ALAC exactly how the GNSO and then the Board is supposed to treat such a mixed and confusing set of outcomes. Moreover, even if only the Recommendations with some level of consensus were implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies.

The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting blocking-level protections may prohibit other reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not satisfied that the exception procedures outlined in the report would be effective.

This being the case, it may be important to consider the principles that guided the ALAC, in our participation in the activities that led to this report, and that the ALAC believes should guide ICANN in considering any special protections.

  1. ICANN should grant special protection to organizations that further the public interest and in particular, those with a strong track record of humanitarian activities. However, such protections should only be granted where there is a history or reasonable expectation that the lack of protections would lead to the misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance.
  2. Such protections, when granted, should not unreasonably impinge on the ability of others with a valid right to use the protected string, from registering such names for uses which do not negatively impact the protected organization nor use to the protected name with the intent to deceive users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote: Although not a gTLD, cern.ca is a good example. The Centre d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec has no connection or even a vague relationship with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a prime example of a new registration that might not be allowed under the proposed rules even though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a logical registration for Olympic Paints.]
  3. The procedures used to grant the protection exceptions identified in number 2 must be both inexpensive and fast.
  4. No top level protections are necessary. Existing or new objection processes are sufficient.

ALAC Positions on Draft Recommendations 

Red Cross Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Level of Support

ALAC

  • Scope 1 Identifiers: "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun" and "Red Crystal" (Language: UN6)
  • Scope 2 Identifiers: 189 recognized National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; International Committee of the Red Cross; International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; ICRC, CICR, CICV, MKKK, IFRC, FICR (Language: in English, as well as in their respective national languages; ICRC & IFRC protected in UN6)***

1

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement  are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Consensus

Can live with

2

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement  are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Divergence

Can live with

3

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement  are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Divergence

No

4

For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level

Consensus

Can live with

5

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Consensus

Support

6

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Divergence

Support

7

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Divergence

No

8

For Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers, if placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Second-Level

Consensus

Support

9

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are bulk added as a single list to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)**

Consensus

Support

10

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement are bulk added as a single list to the Trademark Clearinghouse**

Consensus

Support

11

Red Cross Red Crescent Movement Scope 2 identifiers, if added to the TMCH, allowed to participate in 90 Day Claims Notification phase of each new gTLD launch for Second-Level registrations

Consensus

Support

 

International Olympic Committee (IOC) Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Level of Support

ALAC

  • Scope 1 Identifiers: olympic, olympiad (Language: UN6, + German, Greek, and Korean)**

1

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Consensus

No

2

For International Olympic Committee Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level

Consensus

No

3

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Olympic Committee are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Consensus

No, since exceptions for other orgs not mentioned

4

For International Olympic Committee identifiers, if placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Second-Level

Consensus

No

 

International Governmental Organizations (IGO) Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Level of Support

ALAC

  • Scope 1 Identifiers: GAC List (22 March 2013) - Full Name (Language: Up to two languages)
  • Scope 2 Identifiers: GAC List (22 March 2013) - Acronym (Language: Up to two languages)

1

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Consensus

Can live with

2

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Divergence

No

3

For International Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level

Consensus

No, since exceptions for other orgs not mentioned

4

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Consensus

Can live with

5

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Divergence

No

6

For International Governmental Organizations identifiers, if placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Second-Level

Consensus

Can live with

7

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the International Governmental Organizations are bulk added as a single list to the Trademark Clearinghouse**

Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Support

8

International Governmental Organizations Scope 2 identifiers, if added to the TMCH, allowed to participate in 90 Day Claims Notification phase of each new gTLD launch for Second-Level registrations**

Consensus

Support

 

International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Level of Support

ALAC

  • Scope 1 Identifiers: ECOSOC List (General Consultative Status) (Language: English only)
  • Scope 2 Identifiers: ECOSOC List (Special Consultative Status) (Language: English only)

***Note, this list of Identifiers are INGOs other than the RCRC and IOC

1

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Consensus

Can live with

2

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation"

Divergence

Can live with

3

For International Non-Governmental Organizations Identifiers, if placed in the Applicant Guidebook as ineligible for delegation at the Top-Level, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Top-Level

Consensus

Can live with

4

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Divergence

Support

5

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 2 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement

Divergence

Can live with

6

For International Non-Governmental Organizations identifiers, if placed in Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, an exception procedure should be created for cases where a protected organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the Second-Level

Consensus

Can live with

7

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 (unless otherwise reserve protected) & Scope 2 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are bulk added as a single list to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)

Consensus

Support

8

Second-Level protections of only Exact Match, Acronym Scope 1 (unless otherwise protected) & Scope 2 identifiers of the International Non-Governmental Organizations are bulk added as a single list to the Trademark Clearinghouse

Divergence

Support

9

International Non-Governmental Organizations Scope 1 (unless otherwise protected) & Scope 2 identifiers, if added to the TMCH, allowed to participate in 90 Day Claims Notification phase of each new gTLD launch for Second-Level registrations

Consensus

Support

 

General Recommendations

#

Recommendation

Level of Support

ALAC

1

The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.

Consensus

Support

2

IGO-INGO organizations be granted a fee waiver (or funding) for objections filed against applied-for gTLDs at the Top-Level

Divergence

Support

3

IGO-INGOs allowed to participate in Sunrise phase of each new gTLD launch

Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Support

4

Fee waivers or reduced pricing (or limited subsidies) for registering into the Trademark Clearinghouse the identifiers of IGO-INGO organizations

Divergence

Support, BUT ONLY IF OTHER TMCH USERS DO NOT PAY FOR THIS SUBSIDY

5

IGO-INGOs allowed to participate in permanent Claims Notification of each gTLD launch

Divergence

Support, BUT ONLY IF APPLICABLE TO TRADEMARKS AS WELL

6

Fee waivers or reduced pricing for IGO-INGOs filing a URS or UDRP action

Divergence

No

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

This ALAC Statement is intended to serve the triple purpose of being a reply to the Public Comment on the Draft Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs, an ALAC Minority Statement to be attached to the Final Report, and a Statement of Advice to the ICANN Board.

The ALAC has made a number of statements on the protection of IGO and INGO names, and has participated actively in all GNSO activities related to this topic. Our views specific outcomes of this PDP are detailed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00909.html and will not be restated here.

Given the wide range of views expressed in this paper, and noting that nothing presented here has received the unanimous support of the PDP Working Group, the ALAC would like to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the Recommendations as well as identify the principles that have guided its positions.

The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of “Recommendations” reflecting widely disparate levels of consensus. Not a single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full Consensus), a level of support that is more typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many, the WG views are Divergent [Footnote: In one case, the views were represented as being “divergent” where in fact there was a strong consensus that the Recommendation NOT be implemented.]. It is unclear to the ALAC exactly how the GNSO and then the Board is supposed to treat such a mixed and confusing set of outcomes. Moreover, even if only the Recommendations with some level of consensus were implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies.

The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting blocking-level protections may prohibit other reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not satisfied that the exception procedures outlined in the report would be effective.

This being the case, it may be important to consider the principles that guided the ALAC, in our participation in the activities that led to this report, and that the ALAC believes should guide ICANN in considering any special protections.

  1. ICANN should grant special protection to organizations that further the public interest and in particular, those with a strong track record of humanitarian activities. However, such protections should only be grated where there is a history or reasonable expectation that the lack of protections would lead to the misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance.
  2. Such protections, when granted, should not unreasonably impinge on the ability of others with a valid right to use the protected string, from registering such names for uses which do not negatively impact the protected organization nor use to the protected name with the intent to deceive users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote: although not a gTLD, cern.ca is a good example. The Centre d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec has no connection or even a vague relationship with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a prime example of a new registration that might not be allowed under the proposed rules even though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a logical registration for Olympic Paints.]
  3. The procedures used to grant the protection exceptions identified in 2. must be both inexpensive and fast.

Note: Footnotes shown in [square brackets] will me moved to actual footnotes in the final document.