Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

True, in fact the GNSO has made policy recommendations in the past that 
specified that laws provided and exception to the policy - something that was 
perhaps made necessary by contracts such as the RAA.

In this instance, one of the things I have asked for periodically has been 
evidence of court case rulings where the specific words that the IOC or RCRC is 
seeking to protect have won the protections they are demanding.  I agree with 
David that this is not a precedent for policy, but it would go some distance in 
substantiating the legal arguments that haver been presented in this 
discussion.  At this point, I beleive we are just being presented with one 
side's legal argument.  A judges ruling, e.g., that the name Olympic could not 
be used on the Internet by anyone for any purpose, would indeed be helpful.

Perhaps as a non lawyer I do not understand, but i tend to see one side's 
arguments as interesting and maybe even persuasive, but certainly not 
determinative of anything.

avri


On 30 Nov 2012, at 16:27, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> I would add once again something I have said before: if there are clear and 
> definitive laws that protect IOC & RC names as well as certain IGO names, 
> then ICANN staff simply needs to enforce registry agreements because 
> registries are required to follow applicable laws. A policy could be 
> developed to facilitate compliance with laws, but it would not be totally 
> necessary.
> 
> Chuck
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
>> ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 4:42 AM
>> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I support this position.
>> 
>> And would add that prior decisions by the Board and the GAC have no
>> binding influence on the procesess or recommendations of the GNSO.
>> Certainly should be considered as part of the informational flow, but
>> this is a bottom-up process and as such directives from above have no
>> special merit making them more important than other community input.
>> 
>> Part of the reason we are stuck in the position is because at every
>> step of the way, various parties have tried to trump the GNSO policy
>> process by appealing to Authority.  It is time for that appeal to be
>> dropped in favor of genuine participation in the PDP process.
>> 
>> Getting back to law.  If something is indeed illegal, then take it to
>> the appropriate court for action.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 30 Nov 2012, at 05:55, David W. Maher wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I reiterate my position that the special protection of the Red Cross
>> and Red Crescent, if any, should be based on policy issues related to
>> humanitarian considerations, and not based on legal considerations. The
>> laws referred to below do not have anything to do with ICANN's
>> procedures for the registration of domain names.
>>> David W. Maher
>>> Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
>>> Public Interest Registry
>>> 312 375 4849
>>> 
>>> From: Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>>
>>> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:54:05 -0500
>>> To: THOMAS RICKERT <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>>> "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>"
>>> <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>,
>>> "gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>"
>>> <gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx>>
>>> Cc: "christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>"
>>> <christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>>
>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template
>>> 
>>> Dear Thomas, dear Berry, dear all,
>>> 
>>> (1) Further to yesterday's call, please find attached, the "Red Cross
>> and Red Crescent" comments on the WG IGO/INGO Template distributed
>> yesterday in track changes. As indicated during the call, we recommend
>> that the wording "international organisations" be maintained throughout
>> the document, as it will better allow to encompassall concerned
>> organisations, thus including the international components of the the
>> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement which are considered
>> to enjoy a distinct status under international law. The latter stems in
>> particular from the ICRC's enjoyment of international mandates
>> conferred upon it by the treaties of International Humanitarian Law,
>> the observer status recognized to the International Committee of the
>> Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
>> Crescent Societies in the UN GA, the participation of the components of
>> the Movement in the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red
>> Crescent, in which Sta!
>> te!
>>> s participate, the Headquarters Agreements concluded by the ICRC and
>> the International Federation with many States and acknowledging inter
>> alia the Organisations' diplomatic priviliges and immunities.
>>> 
>>> It should also to our mind be made clear in the template that the WG
>> will require to examine and to take into due account also all
>> distinctive grounds substantiating the requirements for the protection
>> and reservation of the designations of the IO's under consideration and
>> which would complement the affiliation of the said names to any given
>> organisation. This should allow to fully and comprehensively reflect
>> the global public interest in their protection. As recalled during
>> yesterday's call, the words "Red Cross" and "Red Crescent" designations
>> require to be protected, as stipulated under international law
>> treaties, in their own right as the designations of the protective
>> emblems of armed forces medical personnel in times of armed conflict
>> (and not only, or exclusively, as part of the names of the respective
>> components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,
>> whether those of the International Committee of the Red Cross,
>> International Federation of Red Cr!
>> os!
>>> s and Red Crescent Societies, Afghan Red Crescent or American Red
>> Cross).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> (2) As a second point, we also wish to take this opportunity to
>> emphasize, and thus following certain argumentspresented during the
>> yesterday's call, that the protection of the Red Cross, Red Crescent
>> and Red Crystal and related designations is not being grounded or
>> called for out of "sympathy" for the Red Cross and Red Crescent or for
>> its humanitarian roles, but because the protection of these names stems
>> and is a requirement under universally agreed international norms of
>> international humanitarian law (194, soon to be 195 States partiesto
>> the 1949 Geneva Conventions).
>>> 
>>> (3) We take this opportunity to attach the Position Paper which we
>> submitted to the Board on 13 June 2012. There are also, as participants
>> in the former Drafting Group on IOC/RC will recall, a series of other
>> past submissions of the RCRC shared since the beginning of this year.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> With best regards,
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> Christopher M. Rassi
>>> Senior Legal Officer
>>> International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
>>> Chemin des Crêts, 17|1209 Petit Saconnex |Geneva|Switzerland Tel. +41
>>> (0)22 730 4536 | Fax +41 (0)22 733 0395
>>> 
>> ======================================================================
>>> ========= The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by
>> armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more:
>> www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
>> 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.
>> =======================================================================
>> ========
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>