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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

The previous work does not go to the central question - is ICANN bound by
the laws or treaties in an manner that constrains ICANN action?
For example, there is an existing registration of "red cross.biz" that has
nothing to do w/ the Red Cross and is available for purchase. I'd like to
know whether ICANN believes this registration to be in violation of any
law.

David W. Maher
Senior Vice President ­ Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849 




On 11/13/12 1:30 AM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>David:
>
>Can you explain how you came to these conclusions?  The previous work
>seems relevant to me, since it relates to "applicable law" that can be
>interpreted to prohibit the delegation of gTLDs and the registration of
>domain names of certain IGOs/INGOs.  Of course, since that work was
>publicly circulated within ICANN, the GC's office should be "aware" of it.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
>Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 10:32 PM
>To: Jim Bikoff; CHUCK GOMES; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: David Heasley; Kiran Malancharuvil
>Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG
>Proposal
>
>
>Jim and Chuck:
>I believe Chuck has expressed the RySG position very well. I do not
>support the suggested change, however. The previous work done does not
>address the question framed by the RySG. The suggested change refers to
>work that is not relevant to the question.
>David
>David W. Maher
>Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
>Public Interest Registry
>312 375 4849
>
>From: Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:28:09 -0500
>To: CHUCK GOMES <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"
><gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Cc: David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>>, Kiran
>Malancharuvil <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>>
>Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Legal Issues Review - RySG
>Proposal
>
>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<mailto: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
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                                * * *
>
>This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
>confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it
>in
>error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by
>reply
>e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
>it or
>use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
>person. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>                                                                * * *
>
>To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
>inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal
>tax
>advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
>intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
>avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
>and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>another
>party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
>                  
>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00