RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG Proposal

[Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

Thanks for your comments.

We were just trying to supply language as discussed in our conference call last 
week. The first sentence is our opinion.

Best regards,

Jim

James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:26 PM
To: Jim Bikoff; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG Proposal

Jim,

Registries and registrars need a definitive response from the ICANN General 
Counsel's Office regarding whether there are jurisdictions for which 
registration of IOC, RC and IGO names are illegal.  It will be up to the GC 
Office as to whether they can answer the questions using existing research that 
has already been done or whether they need any more research.  If you are 
correct, they may not need to do any further research for the IOC and RC names. 
 The RySG suggested request of the GC Office is not a request for legal 
research but rather a request for direction regarding the legality of 
registering IOC, RC and IGO names because we are required to follow applicable 
laws.  It is a common practice in the GNSO to request legal direction from the 
GC Office with regard to our registry and registrar agreements.

With regard to your suggested changes to the recommended RySG request, I 
personally do not see any problems with them, but I will leave it up to David 
Maher as the official RySG representative to the WG to respond.  The changes 
you propose don't seem necessary to me because I cannot imagine the GC Office 
handling the request without doing what you suggest, but neither do they seem 
to change the substance of the request so making them seems okay to me.

It is also my opinion that the GC Office response to the request will clarify 
the work needed by the WG.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 5:50 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG Proposal

Dear All,

The IOC does not believe that it is necessary to ask for legal review in 
respect to protections for the IOC and Red Cross.  If the group decides that 
the inquiry should be made, the IOC requests that issues relating to the IOC 
and Red Cross be separated from the issues relating to IGO/INGO names and 
acronyms, taking into account the work that was done previously.

Accordingly, the IOC submits the following revised language:

IGO-INGO Legal Review request:

With respect to the question of securing legal advice regarding the protection 
of IGO-INGO names, taking into account the work previously done regarding the 
IOC/Red Cross Red Crescent, the WG requests from the office of the ICANN 
General Counsel an answer to the following question:



Is ICANN aware of any jurisdiction in which a statute, treaty or other 
applicable law prohibits either or both of the following actions by or under 
the authority of ICANN:

a)      the assignment by ICANN at the top level, or

b)      the registration by a registry or a registrar accredited by ICANN of a 
domain name requested by any party at the second level, of the name or acronym 
of an intergovernmental organization (IGO) or an international non-governmental 
organization receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple 
jurisdictions (INGO)?



If the answer is affirmative, please specify the jurisdiction(s) and cite the 
law.



The WG requests that any previous correspondence, determination and research 
from ICANN General Counsel or ICANN Outside Counsel as to the IOC and Red Cross 
Red Crescent Movements be provided as a matter of expediency, without 
duplicating previous efforts.



Best regards,



Jim


James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>





From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:18 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG Proposal

Team,

Below you will find the RySG's proposed version for the Legal Issue Review 
request.  Per our call today, the WG is welcome to make amendment suggestions 
via the list.  Thank you for your input.  B

IGO-INGO Legal Review request:

With respect to the question of securing legal advice regarding the protection 
of IGO-INGO names, the WG requests from the office of the ICANN General Counsel 
an answer to the following question:



Is ICANN aware of any jurisdiction in which a statute, treaty or other 
applicable law prohibits either or both of the following actions by or under 
the authority of ICANN:

a)      the assignment by ICANN at the top level, or

b)      the registration by a registry or a registrar accredited by ICANN of a 
domain name requested by any party at the second level, of the name or acronym 
of an intergovernmental organization (IGO) or an international non-governmental 
organization receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple 
jurisdictions (INGO)?



If the answer is affirmative, please specify the jurisdiction(s) and cite the 
law."


Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb