<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC comments
- To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC comments
- From: Robin Gross <robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:01:59 -0700
I agree with Chuck's comments.
Thanks,
Robin
On Apr 19, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Stephane,
Please see my responses below.
Chuck
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-
ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephane Hankins
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:59 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; Thomas Rickert
Cc: Christopher RASSI (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx);
Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Catherine Gribbin
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC
comments
Dear Thomas, dear all,
Further to last Wednesday’s Conference call, we would like to share
with you below some of our thoughts and positions on the various
proposals now under consideration by the Working Group.
(1) We appreciate firstly that the Group appears to be in agreement
on a differentiated approach and consideration of the respective
cases for protection under its consideration, namely IGO’s, the
IOC, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and INGO’s. As you will
recall, it has been a consistent concern from our side that the sui
generis case for protection and reservation of the Red Cross and
Red Crescent designations and names be distinguished and examined
in their own right, and thus considering the particular protection
of these designations and names under universally agreed
international humanitarian law treaties and the legislation in
force in multiple jurisdictions.
(2) At the top and second level, we ask that:
- the current moratorium on the Red Cross, Red Crescent and
Red Crystal designations be made permanent in all new gTLD’s and
for all future rounds, as recently confirmed by the GAC in its
advice to ICANN’s Board on the occasion of the recent Beijing Meeting;
- it be confirmed, consistent with our recent submissions,
that the protections already recognized to the Red Cross and Red
Crescent designations extend not only to the 29 designations
expressly listed in the Applicant Guidebook and revised Registry
Agreement, but also to the full names of the respective Red Cross
and Red Crescent organizations (such as the names “British Red
Cross”, “Afghan Red Crescent”, “International Committee of the Red
Cross” or “International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies”). A full list of names of the respective Red Cross and
Red Crescent organizations can be made available;
[Gomes, Chuck] I am concerned that new additions like these are
being suggested at this late stage of the process. In the case of
the RySG as I think David and I have made clear, we have to get the
input of the full RySG before we can support a position beyond our
personal views. We did that over the last several weeks including
spending time in a very busy meeting on Constituency day in
Beijingand will be communicating the RySG position before the WG
meeting next week. In my opinion, it is too late in the process to
suggest adding to the list; moreover, the GAC recommendations do
not include the new names you added.
- the designations and names of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent remain available for registration as domain names for the
respective Red Cross or Red Crescent organizations (e.g. through
inclusion on a Modified Reserved List). As noted in our past
communications to the Group, the risk of claims or contests
emanating from organizations outside of the International Red Cross
and Red Crescent Movement would be virtually null, as the number of
organizations duly authorized under international law (and domestic
laws) to make use of the Red Cross or Red Crescent designations for
indicative purposes is finite and specified under relevant
international treaties (the instance of grand-fathered use is
strictly constrained under relevant international treaties; the
respective Red Cross or Red Crescent organizations are not entitled
to "licence" the designations or their names);
- should the need be felt, we would not oppose the notion of
safeguards or of a consent based exception procedure for
demonstrated rights holders, as has been proposed within the Group,
and thus in particular with regard to the acronyms of Red Cross or
Red Crescent organizations
[Gomes, Chuck] As I communicated on the call last week, I am
personally not favorably disposed to a consent based exception
procedure because it is more complicated and puts the protected
organizations in a position of power that I think is better to be
avoided. I prefer a simpler process whereby an exception would be
granted automatically if the applying organization can demonstrate
via the clearing house that it has rights to the applied-for name
if the registrant will agree to not use the name in any way that
would cause confusion with the protected organization. Note that
this is my personal position and not one that the RySG has discussed.
.
As noted in past exchanges with the Group, the acronyms of the two
international organizations within the International Red Cross and
Red Crescent Movement, namely those of the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC/CICR) and of the International Federation of
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), are today well
established and their association with both organizations widely
recognized, including in the context of Resolutions adopted by
States at the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent. We would agree that the registration of the said acronyms
into the TMCH could offer a viable option, subject however to the
confirmation that
§ the said acronyms are eligible to be registered under the
TMCH; and that
§ the respective Red Cross or Red Crescent organizations
enjoy standing to activate subsequent objection mechanisms and
enjoy a waiver of fees in registering under the TMCH and in
resorting, as may be required, to objection procedures.
[Gomes, Chuck] If the fees were waived, who would pay for the
services that the fees cover? I am not sure that other paying
registrants should be asked to subsidize the fees for the Red
Cross. Do you think they should? If the names are of value to the
Red Cross, paying the fees should be a worthwhile business expense
just like other administrative expenses that you incur. Again,
these are my personal thoughts.
With best regards,
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
----- Forwarded by Stephane Hankins/DC_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC on
19.04.2013 13:20 -----
From: Stephane Hankins/DC_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx, Thomas Rickert
<rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Christopher RASSI (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx)"
<christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>, "Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx"
<Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Catherine Gribbin
<Catherine.Gribbin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11.03.2013 18:41
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations
- RCRC comments
Dear Thomas, dear all,
(1) Further to your request, we would like herewith to reiterate
the Red Cross and Red Crescent position that the protections of the
red cross, red crescent red lion and sun and red crystal
designations be recognized, and implemented preventively, within
ICANN's mechanisms, rules and agreements at both top and second
level. This would conform to the requirements of international
humanitarian law - the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their
Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005.
As regards the preventive mechanisms in place and in light of some
of the debates held yesterday during the WG call, we would like to
recall once more that this is not just an issue of fees, for which
a waiver or coverage could it seems be considered, but also one of
the monitoring and controlburden that a reactive/curative approach
would represent for the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.
The prohibitions under the aforementioned Conventions on misuse or
unauthorized use of the designations are in this regard clear and
should be enforced. We will await of course the forthcoming opinion
of ICANN's Legal Council, but it should obviously be borne in mind
that the primary treaties concerned were adopted at a time - 1949 -
when the Internet did not exist, and that their formulations could
hardly be expected at the time to expressly and specifically
address the issue of the registration of domain names. The same
holds true of the national implementating legislation for the 1949
Geneva Conventions in force in many national jurisdictions.
(2) As to the issue of acronyms of organizations, as we mentioned
during the last conference call, it might indeed be required from a
general perspective to seek to define criteria for their protection
and reservation, based for example, besides protection under
international law and/or the domestic law in multiple
jurisdictions, on international recognition, commonality of usage
and/or the level to which the concerned organizations are
identified and known by their acronym. One example is the acronym
of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC, CICR, MKKK)
which enjoys a high level of recognition and is used and referred
to in a number of past resolutions adopted by the International
Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, in which all States
parties to the Geneva Conventions (195 to date, following the
recent accession by the Republic of South Sudan) participate as
full members. It should also be noted that the acronym is also and
furthermore an integral part of the ICRC's official logo (copied
below).
<image001.gif>
Considering that indeed these acronyms, including the acronym of
the International Federation (IFRC), are not per se protected under
international humanitarian law treaties and may be in use by other
organizations, we would agree with the suggestion that the acronyms
be subject, when applied for in a second-level domain name, to some
form of "exception process" or "dispute resolution procedure" for
applicants claiming to have a legitimate interest in registering
the acronyms (a procedure for which however appropriate criteria
would need to be defined).
(3) Further to past discussions within the group, we are in the
process of verifying a table of the names of National Red Cross or
Red Crescent Societies which would require protection, together
with the names "International Committee of the Red Cross" and
"International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies"
and their acronyms, and thus in addition to the designations of the
emblems protected under international humanitarian law ("Red
Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun" and "Red Crystal").
Another solution would indeed be to consider to provide for a
String Similarity review by key word, thus allowing to cover all
strings including the aforementioned designations.
(4) As we have mentioned in the past, limiting the reservations and
the reserved names list to exact matches of the designations and of
the names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations to exact
matches would not fully suit the requirements of the protections as
they are defined under international humanitarian law, which also
prohibit imitations. A String Similarity mechanism would thus be
warranted at the top level and, as far as technically feasible, at
the second level in order to prevent the registration of names/
strings which are confusingly similar.
(5) Lastly, regarding the proposed protection matrix circulated
before last week's call, we would like to recommend that the RCRC
entry in Column 4, Tab “TOP LEVEL”, as well as the tab “SECOND
LEVEL”, be revised to include a reference to “multiple national laws”.
We remain available to discuss any of the points described above.
With best regards,
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.
======================================================================
=========
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|