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

[kenstubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Agree here with David on placing emphasis on improving existing and proposed 
rpm's.

Ken Stubbs

"David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Then let's focus on improving the existing and proposed RPMs (UDRP,
>TMCH,
>URS) so that the IGOs have the protection they afford.
>David W. Maher
>Senior Vice President ­ Law & Policy
>Public Interest Registry
>312 375 4849 
>
>
>
>
>On 12/5/12 10:39 AM, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The last statement "If something is indeed illegal, then take it to
>the
>>appropriate court for action," concerns me and I think this is a
>>dangerous direction to take in this or any other PDP or ICANN process.
>>ICANN is, among other things, an SRO (self-regulatory organization). 
>As
>>such, it has avoided having policy and outcomes decided by courts and
>>legislative bodies by engaging in pro-active self-regulation, such as
>the
>>UDRP and the other DRPs (e.g., the PDDRP).  The various bodies of
>ICANN
>>(GNSO, GAC, etc.) are all attempting to cooperate to provide
>>self-regulation.
>>
>>Organizations such as the National Advertising Bureau of the Better
>>Business Bureaus, the American Medical Association, the National
>>Association of Realtors, NASD, etc. all provide streamlined
>>self-regulatory mechanisms that provide more nuanced, cost-effective
>>expertise-based dispute resolution processes from reaching the courts.
>>I'm not saying these are all equally effective organizations, but it
>is a
>>core part of their model and the ICANN model to serve this function.
>>
>>Of course, some matters will end up in court or legislated by outside
>>bodies -- but it is not in the best interests of the constituents of
>>these organizations or ICANN to throw it all to the courts.  I think
>it
>>is one of the strengths of ICANN that major cases and legislative
>efforts
>>have largely been avoided by reasonably effective self-regulation. 
>(Of
>>course, I am not enamored of all of the outcomes of these efforts.)
>>
>>Furthermore, it is due to the relative success of the ICANN as an SRO
>>that there is relatively little legislation specifically relating to
>>ICANN or the domain name registration process.  In turn, this makes
>the
>>question that has come up here several times (along the lines of "Show
>me
>>a statute that specifically and explicitly refers to ICANN and the
>domain
>>name registration process") a red herring.  (Another reason that this
>is
>>a red herring is that laws are generally drafted to be broad enough to
>>apply to various facts and circumstances as they develop over time
>("old
>>wine in new bottles").
>>
>>In a different world, we could have had ICANN policy and processes
>shaped
>>by litigation (including class action and multinational litigation
>>efforts) and legislative efforts (which would be a  mess, given the
>>multinational nature of ICANNs work) and rulemaking by IGOs (do you
>>really want outside organizations taking over ICANN's internal
>regulatory
>>functions?).  Whatever criticisms I or others have of ICANN, it may be
>>said (as with democracy), that it is the worst system for managing and
>>regulating the Internet, except for all the other ones.
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>Gregory S. Shatan 
>>Partner 
>>Reed Smith LLP
>>599 Lexington Avenue
>>New York, NY 10022
>>212.549.0275 (Phone)
>>917.816.6428 (Mobile)
>>212.521.5450 (Fax)
>>gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>www.reedsmith.com 
>>
>>
>>
>>-----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.
>>>=========================================================================
>>>======
>>> 
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android tablet.