Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC comments

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

My comments in line.

these are personal comments at this point and do not reflect NCSG Policy 
decisions.  The current position of NCSG stands, to the best of my knowledge, 
at resisting any further privileges for IGO/INGO other than possible 
modification of TMCH rules to allow registration in the absence of a trademark 
for certain classes of name.

On 19 Apr 2013, at 19:02, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> (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. 

I also agree that RCRC names are in a different category from any of the other 
names and merit consideration in a class of one for special protective 
privileges.

> 
> (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.

Agreed

> 
> 
> -        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.

Agreed, I am very much against any sort of modified reserved list.  I beleive 
that a name that is given protection privileges and put on the reserved list 
should remain unavailable to anyone. I have not yet seen any methods of 
exemption, other than RESP process, for allowing the use of a name on the 
reserved list that would not be gameable.

> . 
> 
> 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.

I would tend to beleive that fee waivers should be considered for special 
classes of names, but if we are to consider fee wavers for the TMCH, these 
should be considered for a wider class of organization.  I know this goes 
beyond the remit of this group[ but any fee waver program should be wider than 
just these few organizations and should pertain to developing economies and 
communities that find the fees ICANN and its partners charge exorbitant and 
barriers to participation.

but certainly if fee waivers are not made for other deserving categories of 
those using the TMCH, they should not be waived for IGO/INGOs.

avri