28th November, 2017
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, generic and country code Top-Level Domain name system management (respectively gTLD and ccTLD), and root server system management functions, held its 60th public meeting in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, from 28 October to 3 November 2017.
The focus of this Annual General Meeting was on outreach, capacity building and to showcase ICANN’s work to a broader global audience.
FICPI was represented at this meeting by Petter Rindforth, CET 1 co-Chair in charge of Domain Names.
Among the topics were:
Whois: It is important to find the appropriate balance between individual rights to privacy and ensuring transparency and accountability which serves to keep the internet secure and reliable and helps guard consumers and users against various types of illegal abuse.
Geographical Terms/Names: The geographic name issue most clearly and directly affects companies that have trademarks which coincide with or call to mind some location, landmark, geographical feature or “sensitive term”. The most notable example of this being “Amazon” (the company vs the geographical name), which is still discussed with no final solution.
International Governmental Organization (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) access to dispute resolution systems: Petter Rindforth has been co-chair of this working group since its start in August 2014. The Final Report is now close to being completed, with the following proposed solution:
"Where a complainant IGO succeeds in a UDRP/URS proceeding, the losing registrant proceeds to file suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction, and the IGO subsequently succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity, the registrant shall have the option to transfer the dispute to an arbitration forum, meeting certain pre-established criteria for determination under the national law that the original appeal was based upon, with such action limited to deciding the ownership of the domain name. The respondent shall be given 10 days (or a longer period of time if able to cite a national statute or procedure that grants a period longer than 10 days) to either: (1) inform the UDRP/URS provider [and the registrar] that it intends to seek arbitration under this limited mechanism; or (2) request that the UDRP/URS decision continue to be stayed, as the respondent has filed, or intends to file, a judicial appeal against the IGO’s successful assertion of immunity. An IGO which files a complaint under the UDRP/URS shall be required to agree to this limited arbitration mechanism when filing the complaint. If, subsequently, it refuses to participate in the arbitration, the enforcement of the underlying UDRP/URS decision will be permanently stayed. The parties shall have the option to mutually agree to limit the original judicial proceedings to solely determining the ownership of the domain name. Subject to agreement by the registrant concerned, the parties shall also be free to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism described above at any time prior to the registrant filing suit in a court of mutual jurisdiction. In agreeing to utilize the limited arbitration mechanism, both the complainant and the respondent are required to inform ICANN.”
Study & Work Commission (CET) Group 1 Co-Chair: Domain Names