Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Qualification Criteria

[Alain Berranger <alain.berranger@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Robin's objections. It is getting way too complicated anyway.

I suggest the ILP test, with onus put on the organization itself to
demonstrate its ILP status, can provide a strong element of a solution -
unless it is the group's objective to open this door widely to many
organizations. The benefit, IMHO, is that ICANN would seriously limit the
entry to those organizations which are widely considered to hold
independent ILP, are willing to make the effort to openly demonstrate their
ILP status, and that is desirable. Surely the DNS will be better off if we
have less than more of such eligible organizations.

See http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy for a precedent related to .int
- the first part of qualification 3 that may be useful to us here: *"The
organization that is established must be widely considered to have independent
international legal personality and must be the subject of and governed by
international law. ". *
*
*
I doubt that the Red Cross/Red Crescent, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam
and other organizations who belong in that set of humanitarian
organizations will have trouble demonstrating their ILP if they so desire.

*Alain
*
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks, I've listened to the call from Wednesday's meeting and have a few
> comments based on the discussion.
>
> 1.  I agree with others on the call who said there needs to be a greater
> showing of "why" these groups need special privileges at all.  It remains a
> concern for me that we may be required to reach a pre-determined outcome of
> creating new privileges (and only the precise formulation is in question),
> but without the community really being convinced new privileges are
> warranted in the first place.
>
> 2.  I disagree with going forward with new mechanisms that amount to prior
> restrictions on the speech of others (blocking proposals aka "preventative"
> measures).  The legal permissibility of prior restraints on speech are
> extremely rare and involve issues reaching the importance level of national
> security.  No one has even attempted to make a showing that there is a
> "problem" so horrific that prior restraints on speech of others should be
> written into an ICANN policy.  Even our exalted trademark rights holders
> aren't entitled to such a rare mechanism in ICANN RPMs.  But these (yet to
> be defined) groups are?
>
> 3.  I disagree with mechanisms that shift the burden over to a registrant
> to have to prove they have a right to register a name.  This is a
> significant shift in how the domain name system has operated for many
> years.  Its also shifts a jurisprudence scheme from a presumption of
> innocence to a presumption of guilt on the part of the registrant.   That's
> a pretty big deal that hasn't been discussed.
>
> 4.  I disagree with idea that permission of the IGO/INGO should be
> required to register a name.  This chills criticism, which is lawful
> noncommercial speech.
>
> 5.  Over-breadth remains problematic (prevents too much legitimate speech)
> in the "protection" analysis.  The scope and exceptions to rights are not
> taken into account anywhere.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>
> Robin,
> thanks for your message. I understand this might be surprising in
> isolation, but please note that we had a log discussion on the next steps
> and reasons for it during the last call in particular. Can I ask you to go
> to the mp3 or transcript? In addition to that, I am more than happy to
> provide more background information offlist! Please let me know!
>
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
>
> =============
> thomas-rickert.tel
> +49.228.74.898.0
>
> Am 01.03.2013 um 21:53 schrieb Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> It still seems as though we are 'putting the cart before the horse'.
>
> I don't believe there has been a determinative showing that existing RPM's
> are inadequate to protect legitimate interests.  Did this group decide at
> some point to grant new privileges and now just trying to figure out 'who'
> gets these special privileges?  If so, when was that decision made?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
>
> All,
> we have discussed the question of qualification criteria (again) during
> our last call, as you will recall.
>
> What we have on the table at the moment are the two proposals below.
>
> Do you think we can merge them or come up with a new set of criteria?
>
> Following the last call, let me also remind you that these criteria are
> the first hurdle to be taken qualify for the protections. #
>
> We discussed that there might be additional criteria (admission criteria)
> for the protection mechanism in question.
>
> I guess Alan was the first to make the point during the call. Can I ask
> all of you (and Alan in particular :-)) to think of whether and what
> additional criteria you would like to set up as a second hurdle for
> admission to the protections?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
> Here come the two sets of qualification criteria:
>
> 1. What I amalgamated from Mary's proposal and our previous discussions:
>
>
> Organizations that serve the global public interest, that are
> international in scope and operations, and whose primary mission is of such
> public importance that some form of special protection for its name and
> acronym can be justified
>
> Meeting two of the following criteria is deemed to be sufficient evidence
> of the above requirements for an organization to be eligible for
> protections. The protection encompasses the name and the acronym of the
> respective organization as well as designations that - as the case may be -
> are explicitly mentioned in a treaty as a protected designation.
>
> - Protection by treaty
> - Protection in multiple national jurisdictions (either by virtue of a
> specific law or treaty protection that is enforceable in a multiple
> jurisdictions without the requirement of a specific enactment
> - Mission serving the global public interest
> - inclusion in the Ecosoc list
>
> 1. What Mary/Jim have recently submitted:
>
> “It seems to me that what we are striving to get to is a *minimum standard
> * to qualify for special protections (of whatever nature), and that many
> of those that have been suggested already, e.g. treaties, national laws,
> organizational mandates etc., are a form of proxy for the vague concept
> that:
>
>   "an organization [must] be****
> ** **
>
> · international in scope and operations, and****
> ** **
>
> · its primary mission be of such public importance****
> ** **
>
> *· that it receives multilateral or multinational protection beyond
> ordinary trademark laws, and*
> ** **
>
> · that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be
> justified."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.