Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Update to Proposal Document

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

David, 
thanks for your e-mail. That is certainly an aspect we will discuss later today.

Thomas

Am 13.03.2013 um 18:28 schrieb David Heasley <dheasley@xxxxxxxxx>:

> 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] On 
> Behalf Of Berry Cobb
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:03 PM
> To: 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
> @berrycobb
>  
>  
> <2013.3.11 IOC-RC-IGO-Research-for-GNSO-PDP-WG.doc>