Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and related designations

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Stéphane,
thank you for your e-mail. I guess some of the points you mentioned can easily 
be clarified. I am glad you accept the offer I made yesterday to take this 
offline and I will contact you with a separate e-mail to schedule a call on 
this.

Thanks,
Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 24.01.2013 um 17:19 schrieb Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx>:

> Dear Thomas, 
> 
> (1) We were highly surprised to hear during yesterday‘s Conference Call, that 
> the WG’s attention is solely focussed on «exact matches» of the names of 
> IGO/INGO’s and that this is now your own understanding of the WG’s Charter.  
> (Alan later acknowledged, we believe, that this in in fact not stated in the 
> Charter. We do not seem to find such a statement on exact matches of IGO/INGO 
> names in the Charter either).   
> 
> (2) You will certainly recall that the current moratorium on the registration 
> of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (RCRC) designations covers the RCRC names 
> as such, irrespective of affiliation to any given Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> Organisations, and thus in congruence with the clear requirements and 
> protective regime afforded to these designations under the 1949 Geneva 
> Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. This is 
> confirmed in the list of designations reserved in ICANN's Applicant Guidebook 
> (and per the Government Advisory Committee recommendation of 14 September 
> 2011), as well as by the most recent Resolution of the GNSO adopted on 20 
> December last to recommend a temporary moratorium of the same designations at 
> the second level. 
> 
> You will also certainly recall that representative organisations of the 
> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have consistently, in both 
> their written and oral representations to the WG on IGO/INGO, and before that 
> to its predecessor (on the IOC and RCRC names), as well as in their past 
> submissions to the GNSO and to ICANN's Board, called for a reservation 
> covering the designations as defined in the Geneva Conventions and their 
> Additional Protocols, that is: "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and 
> Sun" and "Red Crystal" (RCRC designations).
> We have also clearly stated on a number of occasions in the lead up to the 
> adoption of this Group’s Charter that, while the protection of the RCRC names 
> would now be subsumed under an IGO/INGO paradigm (a decision we argued does 
> not perfectly fit the RCRC designations, which are internationally protected 
> irrespective of affiliation to any Red Cross or Red Crescent Organisation), 
> -        the specific and unique situation of the RCRC designations should be 
> duly taken into consideration and needs to be properly reflected in any 
> future decisions and recommendations of the WG; and that
> -        any future future recommendation of the WG should duly examine the 
> protections of the RCRC names in their own right and based on their unique 
> legal protection. 
> 
> You will certainly recall that we had sought to state and insert this in our 
> comments and proposed additions to the WG’s Charter, but that this was 
> eventually deemed not to be necessary. If I am not mistaken, you had yourself 
> confirmed that such clarifications were not required, as each case for 
> reservation would be examined 360 degrees and would be considered on its own 
> merits... Please see in particular our email of 15 November 2012, sent prior 
> to the approval of the WG's Charter, and our later email of 29 November 2012, 
> as well as our regular interventions made during the WG's weekly meetings.
> 
> We now find that the consistent efforts carried out in the last year have 
> virtually not been heard or are still not understood, and that the concerns 
> put forward on the basis of the clear stipulations of universally agreed 
> international law norms are being disregarded. 
> 
> (3) Considering the conclusions apparently reached yesterday, and based on 
> the terms of the Charter which does not actually seem to restrict the WG’s 
> attention to exact matches, we wish here to urge the Group to duly review 
> this position once more and to consider the RCRC case on its own unique 
> terms. 
> 
> This should usefully take the form of a specific stipulation in the WG’s 
> future recommendations in order to address the unique case of the RCRC 
> designations, and thus in order to duly protect/reserve:
> 
> 1. the "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun" and "Red Crystal" as 
> such, in congruence with the stipulations of international humanitarian law;
> 
> 2. the names and acronyms of RCRC organisations (namely the 188 National 
> Societies recognized within the Movement, the International Committee of the 
> Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red 
> Crescent (IFRC), and thus, in the 6 UN languages and logically in their 
> translations in national languages; as well as additionally
> 
> 3. giving due consideration, in light of the express prohibition on 
> imitations of the RCRC designations under international law,  to the 
> establishment and implementation of a string similarity review mechanism at 
> the top, as well as at the second level (as far as technically feasible), in 
> order to duly prevent the registration of strings confusingly similar with 
> the RCRC names.  
> 
> This would not only bring the WG’s attention and conclusions closer to the 
> actual stipulations of international law, but also ensure consistency with 
> past decisions in this matter, including the GNSO’s own Resolutions to 
> protect the designations RCRC in their own right, temporarily. It would also 
> fit well, with the terms of the last version of the WG Charter distributed 
> and which, under its section "Mission and Scope", expressly tasked the PDP 
> WG, as part of its deliberations, with "distinguishing any substantive 
> differences between the RCRC [...] from other International Organizations".
> 
> We would be happy to have a conversation off-line, as you suggested during 
> yesterday’s call, to further address these issues and decide on how best to 
> proceed.   
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Stéphane and Chris 
> 
> 
> 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 
> Email christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx 
>  
> 
> 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.
>