[gnso-igo-ingo] Update to Proposal Document
Dear Thomas and All, In preparation for our teleconference today, we thought it would be helpful to add the following. The attached recent report from ICANN General Counsel, of which you are aware, describes the special, heightened protection afforded to the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names, either through multilateral treaties or multinational laws, and the effect that those protections have on Registries' and Registrars' risk of liability. This is relevant to our Group discussion in two ways: First, it shows how our proposed special protections can help reduce the risk of harm to Registries and Registrars by reducing their exposure to liability. Second, it shows how multilateral or multinational protections are important factors to consider as criteria. Regards, Jim, David, and Kiran ________________________________ From: Kiran Malancharuvil Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:58 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx); Jim Bikoff; David Heasley Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Update to Proposal Document All, As we discussed in the last Working Group teleconference, Thomas's overview in models Alpha and Bravo is quite useful. They state a rationale that flows into qualification criteria, which are then applied to organizations on a case-by-case basis . They can be unified into one model. Model Alpha: Rationale-- Our goal is to protect: 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. This statement of the rationale, as drafted by Mary Wong, could be slightly revised as follows: Our goal is to protect: Organizations that are international in scope and operations, that serve the global public interest, and whose primary mission is of such public importance that they receive multilateral or multinational recognition and some form of special protection for their names and acronyms can be justified. (This revision, with language from model Bravo, uses the word "recognition," which is appropriate for a general statement of rationale, instead of the objective term "protection," which is more appropriate for qualification criteria.) Qualification Criteria Meeting 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. § International in scope and operations, and § Primary mission of such importance to the public interest § That it receives multilateral or multinational protection, such as: · Protection by treaty; or · Protection in multiple national jurisdictions; or · Inclusion in the Ecosoc list; § And that some form of special protection for its name and acronym can be justified. (This last criterion allows an organization to state reasons for special protection that are not covered by the criteria above it. For example, the International Olympic Committee could state that it has the support of the GAC and the prolonged consideration of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team. It could further state that special protection is justified because it already experiences hundreds of unauthorized second-level domain name registrations monthly in the current TLDs, and this number would undoubtedly escalate exponentially in the new TLDs, outstripping ordinary RPMs.) Thomas's amalgamation of criteria for the IOC, RC/RC, IGOs and INGOs would permit the listing of the specific reasons satisfying the criteria and the rationale. If this version of model Alpha is acceptable, it could obviate the necessity for model Bravo, below. Model Bravo: 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." Regards, Jim, David, and Kiran ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:03 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Update to Proposal Document Team, Attached is version 0.2 of the Qualification Criteria Model proposals with history. In review of the Final Issue Report for IGO-INGO, a section documents proposals created leading up to the formation of this WG. I appended these proposals within this tracking document. Thank you. B Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> @berrycobb Attachment:
2013.3.11 IOC-RC-IGO-Research-for-GNSO-PDP-WG.doc
|