Fw: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed language edit for the WG charter

[Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

On behalf of the components of the International Red Cross and Red 
Crescent Movement, we wish herewith to concur with the IOC's position 
expressed in Jim's message.

In addition to Jim's points, I believe it is valuable to actually quote 
here the Resolution adopted by the ICANN Board's new gTLD Program 
Committee on 13 September 2012, which specifically :

        Requests the GNSO, if it is not possible to conclude the policy 
work prior to 31 January 2013, to advise the Board by no later than that 
date if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with the global public 
interest        or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board 
should take into account in making its decision about whether to include 
second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red          Crescent 
names listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion 
on a Reserved Names List applicable in all new          gTLD registries 
approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program. 

The request by the Board for a GNSO position regarding any objections to 
the protections of the RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the 
initial round of new gLTDs was made very specific and was given a deadline 
by 31st December 2013. It is necessary that the Working Group examine the 
questions of the appropriate protections of the RCRC and of IOC names at 
the second level for the initial round of new gLTDs specifically and on 
their own terms. 

All best regards,

Stéphane


Stéphane J. Hankins
Legal adviser
Cooperation and coordination within the Movement
International Committee of the Red Cross
Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19
----- Forwarded by Stephane Hankins/DC_MOUV/GVA/ICRC on 15.11.2012 10:07 
-----

From:   Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>
To:     "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:   15.11.2012 01:04
Subject:        [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed language edit for the WG charter
Sent by:        owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx



Dear all,
 
On behalf of the International Olympic Committee, we object to Mr. 
Guilherme's proposal on the following grounds: 
 
First, for over a year, the IOC and Red Cross organizations' names have 
been expressly addressed by the Governmental Advisory Committee, the ICANN 
Board, ICANN's inside and outside counsel, the Applicant Guidebook, and 
the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. It would make no sense to suddenly abandon 
this express consideration, and to lump them in with entities that have 
not been so thoroughly considered. 
 
Second, consideration of the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names is 
supposed to be expedited.  Mr. Guilherme's proposal, lumping them in with 
other entities, would prolong the process. 

Third, the Charter language was carefully crafted and approved by the 
IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. Many of the members of that team, who are also 
members of the new PDP Group, were not on the call today, and it would be 
unfair to recommend changes on behalf of the Group in their absence and 
without their knowledge. 
 
In sum, we believe that Mr. Guilherme's proposal does not reflect a 
considered consensus. It would disregard the careful consideration already 
given to IOC/RCRC protection, delay the process, and contravene the 
mission of the Working Group. 
 
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
 
 

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 5:50 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Margie Milam; Berry Cobb Mail
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] FW: Proposed language edit for the WG charter 
To Members of the IGO-INGO Working Group:

During the call today a proposal was submitted to the WG by Ricardo 
Guilherme for the WG to request the GNSO Council to consider revising the 
draft WG Charter which will be voted on during the Council meeting on 15 
November.  The suggested revision is delineated below. 

Members are asked to state whether they would approve or object to this 
proposal being submitted to the Council on behalf of this PDP WG. 

The Council meets at 11:00 UTC on the 15 Nov. and so, WG members are 
requested to submit their approval/objection no later than 8:00 UTC on 15 
Nov. 

If approved to be submitted on behalf of the WG, then the Chair could 
submit/present to the Council for its consideration in voting on adopting 
the draft WG Charter. 

Thank you.

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN




------ Forwarded Message
From: GUILHERME ricardo <ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:12:37 -0800
To: Brian Peck <brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Proposed language edit for the WG charter 

Dear Brian,

As discussed during the call, please find below the proposed remarks and 
edits to the WG Charter (Section "Mission and scope", third paragraph, 
first and second indents), to be shared with and potentially submitted by 
the WG before the GNSO Council call takes place tomorrow.

An inconsistency exists between the language used in the first indent and 
the one contained in the second indent, in the sense that there is already 
an assumption that protection shall be afforded to the two 
movements/organizations named therein. Moreover, a reference to the 
initial round of new gTLDs is already provided in the second indent.

THE CURRENT DRAFT WG CHARTER READS:

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need 
for special protections at the top and second level in all existing and 
new gTLDs for certain international organization names and acronyms, the 
PDP WG is expected to:
 
-      Determine the appropriate protection for RCRC and IOC names at the 
second level for the initial round of new gLTDs.
 
-      Determine whether the current special protections being provided to 
RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new 
gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs and if 
not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections 
for these names.
 
In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that the WG is supposed to 
provide, on a comprehensive and objective basis, recommendations 
concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs and INGOs 
(including as the case may be the IOC and the RC for the latter category). 


Consequently, in case the final recommendation is to refuse permanent 
protection to one entity or another, there is no legal or logical reason 
to further "develop specific recommendations for appropriate special 
protections for these names". I may also add that both the IOC and the RC 
fall within the scope of INGOs.

In the light of the above, the first indent should be deleted (as it is 
redundant/duplicating language already present in the second indent) and 
the second indent read as follows instead:

"Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC 
and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of the new 
gTLDs are appropriate and should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names 
in all gTLDs." 

With kind regards,

Ricardo Guilherme


------ End of Forwarded Message
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type="text/css">
    <!--
    p { font-family: Arial;font-size:9pt }
    -->
</STYLE>

</head>
<body>
<hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/>
<p>The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict 
and other situations of violence. Find out more: <a 
href="http://www.icrc.org";>www.icrc.org</a><p>

<p>This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.<br>
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named 
recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended 
recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. 
</p>
<hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/>
</body>
</html>