To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE
Subject: RFC-3
Date: June 8, 2001
4, route des Morillons CH-1211 GENEVE 22
Telephone direct (22) 799 6787 central (22) 799 61 11
Fac-simile (22) 798 86 85 E-mail: ilo@ilo.org
Site intemet. www.ilo.org
Mr Francis Gurry
Assistant Director General
Legal Counsel
World Intellectual Property Organization
34 chemin des Colombettes
1211 Geneva 20
Dear Mr .Gurry,
In response to your correspondence of 26 April 2001, please be advised that the Office of the Legal Adviser of the International Labour Office has reviewed the Interim Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process dated 12 Apri12001.
Concerning Chapter 3, Names of International Intergovernmental Organizations and their Protection in the DNS, we wholeheartedly agree that effective communication and dissemination of information is essential to fulfilling the ILO's mandate and in this regard the internet has become an indispensable tool.
Referring to paragraphs 85 through 131, our comments are as follows
97.(i) Although we support the exclusion mechanism for the registration of IGO names by parties other than IGOs, there does appear to be a need to limit this exclusion mechanism in the instance of acronyms where there would be no risk for confusion or deception. Case in point, there exists a German medical company that has established a web site located at ilo.com, as well as, a Canadian internet company that can be found at ilos.net.
103. Admittedly, the unrestricted domains are especially: Prone to risk and require constant vigilance on the part of the
IGOs that is not always possible. For example, a brief internet search indicates that internationallabour.org, internationallabour.com, and internationallabour.net were registered by a private individual in the year 2000. As the ILO may consider using the .org site in the future, as it is the extension of ilo.org it should not have to find itself in the position of compensating someone for this domain name.
108. We agree with the comment that if there is an increase in protection through the dispute resolution procedures of the UDRP for IGOs, it must take into account "the customary immunity of intergovernmental organizations from legal process and execution."
111. We support the establishment of an exclusion mechanism in some or all of the gTLDs for the names and acronyms of IGOs, as the unrestricted domains are more widely known than .int which is intended for use by IGOs. However, it should accommodate the registration of acronyms where there would be no risk for confusion or deception.
113. The ability to register more than one .int, could perhaps increase its use and recognition. In addition, the registration of names and acronyms in different languages and spellings should be considered within the scope of .int.
121. With the increased number of gTLDs, monitoring will become more cumbersome and difficult by the IGOs. Thus, as stated above, it may be preferable to have an exclusion mechanism for names and acronyms which permits the registration of acronyms where there would be no risk for confusion or deception.
124. The availability of an administrative adjudication procedure that is well-publicized, efficient, inexpensive and would respect "the customary immunity of intergovernmental organization from legal process and execution" would be welcome.
I hope this information proves useful.
Yours sincerely,
Giovanna Beaulieu
Office of the Legal Adviser