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

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi all,

Comment submitted and page updated here
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2024

Warmly,
Tomslin



On Wed, 8 May 2024 at 01:04, Emmanuel Vitus <emmanuelvitus at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240521/adaee004/attachment.htm>