[NCSG-PC] NCSG Public comment on Phase 2 Initial Report of the EPDP on IDNs

[Emmanuel Vitus]

Hello Pedro,
Thank you for your detailed insights. I appreciate your perspective on the
potential expansion of TMCH's tools and the implications it could have for
different stakeholders.
I've attached a few materials specifically addressing the "F1 Charter
Question on TMCH" that should help clarify some of the issues you've
raised. My hope is that these documents will enlighten your opinion on the
question and enrich your contribution to the comment.
I remain available for further discussion and am keen to hear more of your
thoughts, as well as those from other experts in the list and our lawyers
in the house, to shed further light on these complex issues.
Cordialement,
Emmanuel

Le dim. 5 mai 2024 à 23:21, Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Dear Emmanuel,
>
> Thank you very much for sharing the document. It's clear and helpful in
> explaining the issues you identified.
>
> However, if you can, I'd like some more info regarding the "F1 Charter
> Question on TMCH." Expanding the scope of TMCH's tools, which seems to
> favor intellectual property rightsholders (IMHO), may raise a few concerns,
> especially if our comment in favor of expanding this protection would not
> align us with the positions traditionally advanced by the IPC and opposed
> by the NCSG. While the current wording might negatively impact some
> non-profits and non-commercial entities, it appears to me that private
> companies with significant IP investments would likely benefit most from
> such an expansion - and IP rights have been instrumentalized, at times,
> against good-faith registrants due to the interpretation margins around IP
> infringement, which can pose a risk to online freedom of expression. Making
> this interpretation margin larger is something that usually worries me.
>
> But I would like to hear your opinion on this, because I may just be
> inadequately extending a piece of the logic around DNS x IP to a different
> context where it does not fit well.
> Cordially,
>
> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
> Researcher
> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
> Board Member @ CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>, ISOC BR
> <https://isoc.org.br/> and IODA <https://ioda.org.br/>
> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
> mistake, please reply informing it.
>
>
> Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024 às 10:13, Emmanuel Vitus <
> emmanuelvitus at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
>> Dear Comrades,
>> As the NCSG representative in the IDNs EPDP discussions, I am seeking
>> your feedback on the GNSO EPDP Phase 2 Initial Report on Internationalized
>> Domain Names, specifically concerning second-level variant management for
>> NCSG public comment.
>>
>>  I found most of the report straightforward. However, I've identified
>> three specific areas that appear to require further review and
>> consideration.
>>
>> *Implementation Guidance 15: *This guideline proposes a standard
>> approach allowing registries or registrars to enhance services such as
>> RDDS. These services could offer comprehensive data about a domain and its
>> variants, possibly through advanced methods like bulk services. I suggest
>> these enhancements should remain optional and be tightly regulated to
>> ensure privacy and security.
>>
>> *F1 Charter Question on TMCH:* The current "exact match" rules under the
>> Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) are too restrictive and could hinder
>> organizations whose names vary due to linguistic or branding changes. I
>> propose extending this rule to include "substantial matches," allowing
>> better protection for the intellectual properties of entities/orgs across
>> various regions and languages.
>>
>> *Document Readability: *Although the report is well-structured, its
>> technical and legal jargon could be a barrier for non-commercial
>> stakeholders unfamiliar with domain name systems or trademark law. The
>> readability analysis shows a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 12.96 and a
>> Gunning Fog Index of 16.37, indicating a high complexity level.
>>
>> These are my primary concerns, though there may be other issues I'm not
>> aware of or you may disagree with my points. Please review the attached
>> document
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oeuAYEt-HHIaaD39rX-xRq5uRey2OPZ88z6VBXTPi7g/edit?usp=sharing>
>> containing my detailed comments and let me know your thoughts.
>>
>> Feel free to reach out directly if you have any questions or need further
>> clarification. Colleagues  Akinremi Peter Taiwo,  Grace Githaiga, and Maju
>> are also monitoring this report and can assist with any inquiries. Great if
>> we can have all comments or questions by May 8, 2024.
>>
>> Thank you for your attention and input.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Emmanuel
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240507/86131e7c/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EPDP IDNs F1 Charter Question.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 902472 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240507/86131e7c/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final Draft Report-TMCH & IDN Variant Research Report .pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1312392 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240507/86131e7c/attachment-0003.pdf>