[gnso-igo-ingo] Re: IGO-INGO Initial Report - Comments

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kiran,
thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate you taking the time to review and 
comment on the report.

Please note that - as Berry has pointed out - this is a very early draft. We 
aimed at sending something out to you prior to our meeting and certainly more 
information will go into the report, such as earlier submissions and 
information from the wiki.

Thanks,
Thomas

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

Am 07.04.2013 um 11:57 schrieb Kiran Malancharuvil <kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx>:

> Dear All,
> Thank you Berry, Brian and Thomas for preparing this initial report. Before 
> our group meeting on Monday in Beijing, we wanted to call attention to some 
> global issues in the report that should be addressed.
> When the IOC/RCRC issue was encapsulated into the IGO/INGO PDP in Prague, we 
> expressed concern that the group would lose focus regarding the distinct 
> position of these organizations. As you well know, the IOC/RCRC has 
> demonstrated, over the course of this PDP and previously in the context of 
> the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, that the harm to these two organizations and to 
> consumers, as well as the legal status of these two organizations are unique. 
> We have answered every specific request for information with the goal of 
> fostering consensus on the issue. The IOC position has been confirmed by GAC 
> Advice, ICANN Board action and the General Counsel, through its response to 
> this working group. We hoped that the group, and ICANN Staff (through its 
> drafting of presentations to the GNSO and through its drafting of this 
> initial report) would continue to recognize the separate and distinct nature 
> of these two organizations, without prejudice to other organizations that may 
> seek protection under a separate set of qualification criteria.
> However, we note with disappointment the lack of content in the initial 
> report (aside from the Background section) that recognizes the special nature 
> of the IOC and the RCRC. For example, Section 5.1.1 does not acknowledge that 
> the main findings of ICANN’s General Counsel Office were overwhelmingly 
> positive for the IOC and RCRC. The report stated: “Nearly all of the sampled 
> jurisdictions (representing all geographic regions) provide protections to 
> the IOC and/or RCRC for the use of their names and acronyms, and those 
> protections are often understood to apply to domain names.” This is a very 
> different statement than what appears in the initial report, which suggests 
> that only the Brazilian and Mexican statutes could reasonably be interpreted 
> as applying to domain names.
> We believe that treating these organizations as distinct and separate from 
> IGOs or other INGOs is not discriminatory, as some members of the group have 
> claimed. Rather, separating the issue from the other categories of 
> organizations benefits all, as it allows us to focus on developing the same 
> kind of research and providing the same thoughtful consideration as was done 
> previously for the IOC/RCRC. While we acknowledge that this group is not 
> beholden to the findings of the IOC/RCRC Drafting Team, we should try to 
> benefit from the hard work of the community during that process, and we 
> should allow ourselves to learn from and be guided by that information.
> We recall the discussions in Prague about expediting this issue within the 
> context of the PDP process. Because the IOC and RCRC have provided voluminous 
> evidence of consumer harm, harm to the organization and sui generis 
> multinational protection (confirmed by ICANN General Counsel), we believe 
> that it is appropriate to move forward on this subsection of the PDP. 
> Accordingly, we request that the initial report include, as a minority 
> viewpoint, the suggestion that the group should follow GAC advice regarding 
> the IOC/RCRC by recommending protection on the second level as a matter of 
> urgency. By reaching conclusion on this issue, the group can more 
> constructively develop appropriate solutions for the IGO and remaining INGO 
> organizations that seek protection through this PDP.
> We look forward to discussing this matter further with you on Monday.
> Best regards,
> Jim, David & Kiran
>  
> Kiran J. Malancharuvil
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, L.L.P.
> Georgetown Place
> 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 120
> Washington, D.C. 20007
> (202) 944-3307 - o
> (619) 972-7810 - m
> kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx
>  
>  
> This message from the law firm of Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP may 
> contain confidential or privileged information. If you received this 
> transmission in error, please call us immediately at (202) 944-3300 or 
> contact us by e-mail at kmalancharuvil@xxxxxxxxx. Disclosure or use of any 
> part of this message by persons other than the intended recipient is 
> prohibited.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Berry Cobb
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 12:59 AM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Initial Report - WORKING DRAFT
>  
> WG Team,
>  
> Attached is the latest draft of the Initial Report for the IGO-INGO.  This 
> document is still very much work in progress and a few edits/changes may come 
> back prior to our face to face meeting on Monday.  In essence the structure 
> of our meeting will be to review/discuss/determine level of consensus on the 
> proposed recommendations matrix in Section 5.
>  
> In the meantime, if you have any suggestions please send them my way, and I 
> will incorporate into the master version.
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Berry Cobb