Comments in Response to the Secretariat's Questionnaire on the Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System
Replies by Brazil to the Questionnaire on the Protection of Country Names in the Domain Name System (circulated in the Annex to Circular C. 6635 of December 19, 2001)
i) How should the name of a country be identified (for example, by reference to the United Nations Terminology Bulletin, ISO Standard 3166, or by some other method) and should both the long and short names of countries be protected?
-Its considered that the protection to be given to the countries names shall be extend to long names, such as specified in the Bulletin of terminology of the United Nations, as short names, such as specified in Standard ISO 3166.
(ii) In what languages should country names be protected?
-The languages in which the names of countries must be protected are: the official language of each Country and the official languages of ISO.
(iii) To what domains should any protection be extended (for example, to all, both existing and future, g1LDs, only to future gTLDs, also to ccTLDs. etc.)?
-It is considered that there must be protection for country names for gTLD ".info", currently in sunrise period. Eventually, it could be appropriated to extend such protection for future gTLDs, for what it is suggested that the ICANN should promote previous consultations, for example through the GAC, and if it is the case to include such limitation within the rules of the respective sunrise periods. It is also considered that the protection should not be extended for the ccTLDs, so that each country could be free to settle the criteria for the use of the related extension.
(iv) How should any alleged acquired rights be treated?
-It is considered that in a sunrise period we shouldn't speak about rights itself, once it's a process that always involves risk for the interested parts. The protection that now is necessary for the countries names inside the gTLD ".info" configures a perfect plea, mainly inside the related period. So, eventual indemnities could be cogitated, but only in the value of the costs for the register, considered by the current detainer of the domain petitioner, and could be granted by the interested countries. In the launching of a sunrise period for a new gTLD, the interests of the countries for the definition of the roles, after consultation to the GAC by ICANN, must be considered.
(v) what mechanism should be used to implement protection (for example, the UDRP or some other mechanism) ?
-The arbitration mechanism (UDRP) is the most appropriate to be used.
vi) Should any protection extend to the exact country name only or: also to misleading variations ?
(vii) Should protection be absolute or should it be dependent upon a showing of bad faith?
It was considered convenient to give a unique reply for the questions of (vi) and (vii), below:
-In the matter of variations for the countries names, such as defined above, that may take the deceiving interpretations, it's considered that the same ones could be object of protection if it were proved that the one who registered under the gTLD ".info" acted with bad intention or of eventual new gTLDs, such as related in the reply to the question (iii). However, the countries names, defined as related in the reply to items (i) (ii), will receive the protection in evidence completely, independent of any circumstance and of the necessity of being proved the use of bad-faith."