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

["Roache-Turner, David" <david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx>]

I would agree with that:  amendments to existing and proposed RPMs (all 
curative) can only be part of the solution to a problem which has its 
foundations in legal norms which are by their nature preventive in effect (i.e. 
preventing registration of certain IGO names and acronyms), as mentioned in 
Ricardo's earlier email.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: mercredi, 5. décembre 2012 18:56
To: 'David W. Maher'; Avril Doria; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template


These may be part of the solution here and these should be considered, but I 
don't think it will provide a complete solution.

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 11:50 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Avril Doria; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] RCRC Comments on the WG IGO/INGO template

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.
>>======================================================================
>>===
>>======
>>
>
>
>




World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message 
may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If 
you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender 
and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail 
attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.