[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Another factor separate from 'harm' is 'confusion'.  I have not suggesting that 
we should bring that in but rather just to it out as an issue that was 
considered.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roache-Turner, David
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:02 AM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT'; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx); Berry Cobb (mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx); Jim 
Bikoff (jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx); David Heasley (dheasley@xxxxxxxxx); Kiran 
Malancharuvil (kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist


Fully agree.



>From a WIPO perspective, it is also important to recall that the Paris 
>Convention and its ensuing network of laws which protect IGO names and 
>acronyms (and the .int domain, for that matter) were not predicated on 
>subjective dimensions of actual harm.  Was such evidence of actual harm to 
>ICANN's own names, or the geographical ones, called for in order to qualify 
>for preventive protection on the reserve list, that being the option currently 
>contemplated by the Board? Is not the risk of such harm so obviously inherent 
>in the introduction of infinite numbers of new names enough to protect the 
>institutionalized public interests involved?

The problem we need to be focusing on now from an IGO perspective is not still 
more ways to identify the problem, which is the long-standing lack of 
approripate preventive protection for IGO names and acronyms, as protected 
under law, as the UPU in this forum, and the IGO community more broadly through 
its letters to the Board and in its work with the GAC has made abundantly 
clear.  But instead how to put in place appropriate preventive protection 
policies at ICANN to ensure such harm to the legally protected names and 
acronyms of these public bodies cannot occur as a result of ICANNs massive 
expansion of the DN system.



David



David Roache-Turner

Head, Internet Dispute Resolution

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Shatan, Gregory S. 
[GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2013 2:58 PM
To: 'Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT'; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>); Berry 
Cobb (mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>); Jim Bikoff 
(jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>); David Heasley 
(dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>); Kiran Malancharuvil 
(kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Objective Criteria Shortlist
This is very well put.  I agree with Claudia 100%, except that I would more 
firmly state that prior efforts to stem abuse should not be a prerequisite for 
protection of identical strings (I would consider it for previously-abused 
variants, as in the Strawman proposal).

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<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:08 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>); Berry 
Cobb (mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>); Jim Bikoff 
(jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>); David Heasley 
(dheasley@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>); Kiran Malancharuvil 
(kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>)
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Objective Criteria Shortlist


Hi all,



We strongly support the effort to work efficiently and steadily towards an 
objective and non-discriminatory Recommendation regarding special protections 
for IGO-INGO names.  In this light, we suggest the following prioritized list 
of criteria:



1)      Membership (e.g., 1+ country represented)

2)      Organizational mandate to serve the international public good (e.g., 
Statutes, Bylaws, Treaty, etc.)

3)      Character string to be protected is already protected in law (e.g., 
trademark law, Article 6ter)

4)      Non-profit status

5)      Work/serve on international level (e.g., 1+ countries or 1+ 
international organization)

6)      Engage individuals globally (e.g., involving persons from 1+ country)

7)      Internet presence (e.g.,  at least 1 domain name)



Please note the last criteria is suggested in light of our recent conversations 
(and could be expanded to include evidence of defending that presence, if 
appropriate.)  Of course any discussion of an organization's efforts to defend 
against domain name abuse must be contextualized.



There is a deep irony in requiring "vulnerable" organizations to show that they 
have and can shell out thousands and thousands on a yearly basis for domain 
name abuse.  Such an exercise needs to be contextualized with reference to the 
organization's mandate and operational realities.



In regards to the attached, we disagree that "The most objective, and useful 
criterion to the inquiry is the existence of national laws or treaties that 
prohibit the unauthorized use of the words/designations in question" for the 
following reasons;



a.       The relationship between the aspect protected by treaty and the 
alphanumeric string to be protected may be far from direct or objectively 
assessed (unless, e.g., it is the Paris Convention, TRIPs, etc. where TM = name 
or 6ter protection = name).



b.      Relatedly, the relevance a treaty may have in regards to the protection 
of a name in a domain name may not be readily evident (unless, e.g., again, the 
name is directly protected).



c.       Reference to a treaty may exclude many organizations (for example, 
organizations without trademark protection for their names across multiple 
jurisdictions) without any legitimate justification.



d.      We should remember there is nothing in the language of the charter that 
limits us when discussing the relevance of treaty protections.  The cases for 
INGOs, IGOs and the IOC and the Red Cross may be vastly different and merit 
individual analysis.



As a final note, we suggest the top two (2) criteria are of priority.



Both (1) membership composition and (2) possessing an organizational mandate to 
serve the international public good are criteria directed to including only 
organizations with a truly global reach and which serve the public good.



Sincerely,

Claudia

Claudia MacMaster Tamarit, Esq.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Manager

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO Central Secretariat
T:  + 41 22 749 0441
F:  + 41 22 733 3430
E:  macmaster@xxxxxxx<mailto:macmaster@xxxxxxx>
www.iso.org<http://www.iso.org/>




* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00


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.