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

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

That is a point on which I believe we may agree. Can we also agree to take
the Reserved Name list off the table?
David W. Maher
Senior Vice President ­ Law & Policy
Public Interest Registry
312 375 4849 




On 12/5/12 10:53 AM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>I think that is what this PDP was created to establish.
>
>As to whether what the IOC is asking is "beyond the law", I'll let those
>more familiar with the IOC legal landscape respond.  However, I think
>your understanding of the different laws is incorrect (and I think the
>IOC has provided access to documents that confirm this).
>
>In the United States, the Olympic trademarks protected by U.S. statute
>(36 U.S.C. 220506(c)) include: the name "UNITED STATES OLYMPIC
>COMMITTEE"; the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting
>of five interlocking rings; the words "Olympic, " "Olympiad" and "Citius
>Altius Fortius," and also the words "Paralympic," "Paralympiad,"
>"Pan-American" and "America Espirito Sport Fraternite," or any
>combination of these words; the emblem of the United States Olympic
>Committee, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically
>extending red and white bars on the base with five interlocking rings
>displayed on the chief; and the symbols of the International Paralympic
>Committee and the Pan-American Sports Organization, consisting of a torch
>surrounded by concentric rings.  I am fairly confident that the laws of a
>number of jurisdictions are similar.
>
>As for exceptions, we can find ways of dealing with them without throwing
>the baby out with the bathwater.  In the IOC/RCRC DT, we proposed a
>process where other rights-holders could seek the ability to register
>strings that fell within the IOC or RCRC ambit (e.g., Olympic paint and
>Red Cross bandages, if memory serves).
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo
>Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 8:46 AM
>To: 'Avri Doria'; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template
>
>
>All,
>I think in this case what they are asking, at least the IOC, is beyond
>the law.  I also am not a lawyer, but I have heard several times that in
>the case of the IOC the different laws prevent the use of the symbol, not
>the name.  And we all know that Olympic and several variations of the
>name in several languages, are being use by commercial entities with no
>relations to the IOC.  Can we prevent these entities from using their own
>brand just because is reserved for the IOC?  If they are using it we must
>suppose that they have the legal right to do it.
>I am not so sure about the RCRC.
>If we include all the IGO and INGO then the problem is huge.
>I think we need a PDP to establish a general criteria for the protection
>of IGO and INGO brands in order to prevent us from having to analyze each
>case individually, and if some kind of protection is needed it should be
>the minimum necessary.
>Best regards,
>osvaldo
>
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
>En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: Viernes, 30 de Noviembre de 2012 11:05
>Para: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>Asunto: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template
>
>
>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.
>>> =====================================================================
>>> ==
>>> ========
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
>únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede
>ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor
>notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine
>inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su
>sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este
>e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas
>destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con
>respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo
>nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información
>
>
>This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for
>the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the
>sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the
>attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person
>or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is
>not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our
>Information Security Policy.
>
>