IGO Work Track Briefing Paper - DRAFT - 11 Feb 2021.pdf

[Mueller, Milton L]

Kris,
Thanks for consulting with the SG about your position.

I would advise you to read more carefully the Briefing Paper you sent. The positions you outline below have almost no relationship to the questions that are being posed in this proceeding or the boundaries that have been proposed. Here is the relevant part of the Briefing Paper:

---
1. The Work Track cannot recommend the creation of any specific new dispute resolution
procedures (see Curative Rights PDP Recommendation #1b).
2. While substantive modifications to the UDRP and/or URS are not prohibited
(Recommendation #1a), an IGO filing a complaint under either the UDRP or URS must
nevertheless still demonstrate that it has a trademark or similar substantive legal right
(Recommendation #2, which seeks to allow an IGO with unregistered trademark rights
to fulfill the UDRP/URS standing requirement by relying on its compliance with Article
6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property).
3. The Work Track's recommendation(s) must not affect or limit a registrant's right to file
suit in a court of competent jurisdiction (including but not limited to the ability to
request that the court review the outcome of a UDRP/URS panel decision).
4. The Work Track's recommendation(s) cannot supplant the role of a court in
determining the question of an IGO's immunity from the jurisdiction of that court,
which is a matter of law to be determined in each case by the relevant court.
---
In your statement below, Kris, you are proposing to completely change the rules of the entire domain name system, in a way that is not only does not stay within the scope defined above, but is extremely bad policy from a noncommercial users point of view.

>I will be raising some pertinent questions on legitimacy of
> someone who registers a domain not registered in their own country
> as a business or WIPO On an international business case firm.

What??? We are the Noncommercial users SG. We are neither businesses or trademark holders, generally. You seem to be implying that the members of this constituency have no right to register a domain at all. Further, many of us are transnational in outlook or membership. What does "in their own country" mean in this case?

> Creating the ccNSO was a good thing as a derivative and this could lead
> to a proper working of the ccNSO and the main 3 domains, org,net,com -
> I say this because we need to resonate and ensure clarity in the domain
> name business such as asia, Africa etc.,

This is just incoherent. This proceeding is not about the ccNSO it is about whether International Governmental organizations (IGOs) should get some special, trademark-like rights over their acronyms. Try to stay focused on that issue and how it relates to our interests as noncommercial users.

> now the point I want to make is that we need to push the whole model
> in a very different way,

You are not tasked with changing "the whole model." Stick to the actual issues.
What kind of rights to IGOs have. Generally, NCSG members do not agree to give the IGOs special privileges over domain names. Try to help us limit their land grab if you can.

Thanks,

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
Internet Governance Project<https://internetgovernance.org/>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210217/86eb6244/attachment.htm>