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

[Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji@xxxxxxx>]

Hello Thomas,

I personally am okay with Chuck's proposal and totally concur with it.

Regards

Poncelet


On 23 April 2013 07:12, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jim, all,
> the RySG approach is pretty much congruent with the proposed compromise we
> started discussing in Beijing.
>
> It is good to see that such approach seems to get some traction in the
> group. As the exception procedure was one were we had diverging views, may
> I ask all of you to consider Chuck's proposal and chime in with comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> Am 22.04.2013 um 23:06 schrieb Jim Bikoff:
>
> Dear Chuck and all:****
> ** **
>
> Regarding the comment about the exception procedure:****
> “*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.”*
> ** **
> We find an option along this line appealing, as it may present a more
> cost-effective solution for registrants with claimed legitimate interests,
> and may avoid a significant burden or cost to the organizations.  We also
> think that if a mark is validated through the trademark clearinghouse, that
> lowers the potential for abuse.  And if the protected organization still
> disputes the applicant's claim of legitimate right to use the protected
> name, it can initiate a proceeding whereby an impartial third party would
> resolve the dispute. We can discuss the form this dispute resolution would
> take, and the standards to be used, at the upcoming teleconference.****
> ** **
> We look forward to discussing further. ****
> ** **
> Best regards,****
>
> Jim****
> ** **
> James L. Bikoff****
> Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP****
> 1101 30th Street, NW****
> Suite 120****
> Washington, DC 20007****
> Tel: 202-944-3303****
> Fax: 202-944-3306****
> jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx****
> ** **
> ****
> ** **
> ** **
> *From:* owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>] *On
> Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 8:02 PM
> *To:* Stephane Hankins; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; Thomas Rickert
> *Cc:* Christopher RASSI (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx);
> Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Catherine Gribbin
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC
> comments****
> ** **
> Stephane,****
> ** **
> Please see my responses below.****
> ** **
> Chuck****
> ** **
> *From:* owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx <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 <christophe.lanord@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 control*
>  burden 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 <christophe.lanord@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.
> ===============================================================================
> ****
>
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*