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

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mason,
couldn't the operational issues be resolved by requiring the listed 
organizations to apply with the TMCH?

Thomas

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

Am 25.04.2013 um 22:53 schrieb Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>:

> All --
> 
> After further discussion with the RrSG on the issue of adding acronyms to the 
> TMCH, I'm obliged to report the RrSG currently is in opposition.  The 
> rationale is twofold:  First, there are some valid operational questions 
> raised, which I detail in the following bullets (to use a favorite phrase of 
> the moment, a non-exhaustive list); and second, the RrSG believes acronyms 
> are broadly applicable and should be made available to customers of all kinds.
> 
> Operational issues:
> 
> How would the TMCH distribute the signed mark data (SMD) file to an IGO?
> How would someone from the IGO provide credentials to the TMCH?
> How would the TMCH validate the IGO representative as an authority for the 
> IGO?
> 
> I'm sure there are other technical considerations that have yet to be 
> discussed as well, but these are good examples of the operation matters that 
> need to be discussed before policy can be fully settled.
> 
> The RrSG continues to support the addition of full IGO names to the reserve 
> list.
> 
> I'm very appreciative of the RySG bringing its plan to the attention of the 
> WG and believe we're getting closer to consensus.  I'll continue to work with 
> the WG and the RrSG on these concerns.
> 
> Thanks --
> 
> Mason
> 
> On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:55 AM, Mason Cole wrote:
> 
>> All --
>> 
>> The RrSG has not yet fully formed its position but overall finds consensus 
>> with the RySG approach and believes this is a very good step toward 
>> consensus.
>> 
>> To the points in Chuck's document:
>> 
>> - RrSG agrees of course with protecting Olympic and Red Cross names at the 
>> top and second levels.
>> - RrSG supports protecting fully spelled out names of IGOs at the second 
>> level (as documented on the GAC's list  
>> - RrSg finds no internal support for adding IGO acronyms to the protected 
>> list; there is ongoing discussion now about modification of RPMs and sunrise 
>> eligibility, but I believe registrars will support this step.
>> - Discussions in the RrSG also continue on expansion of the current GAC list 
>> by IGO application to the GAC for inclusion
>> - Discussion also continues on an exception procedure; the RrSG 
>> preliminarily believes a) protection of fully spelled out names, and b) 
>> making acronyms sunrise eligible would mostly obviate the need for 
>> exceptions.  However, the RrSG believes any considered exception procedure 
>> would need to be very simple and straightforward, as this is a matter that 
>> directly impacts our customers' registration experiences and (as the board 
>> pointed out to the GAC) could be far more complicated than one would assume.
>> 
>> I look forward to discussions on today's call.
>> 
>> Mason
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Apr 23, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Lanre Ajayi wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> The RySG approach looks a good balance between the divergent views and 
>>> seems to be bringing us close consensus. I found the approach appropriate. 
>>> 
>>> I also have concern about given the organizations seeking additional 
>>> protections the power to determine who gets exceptions. I think 
>>> demonstrating the right to an acronym through the use of TMCH should be 
>>> adequate in granting exemptions to the applying organization.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> --Lanre
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] 
>>> On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>>> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:01 PM
>>> To: David W. Maher
>>> Cc: Stephane Hankins; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; Christopher RASSI 
>>> (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx); Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Catherine Gribbin
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC 
>>> comments
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks, David!
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> =============
>>> thomas-rickert.tel
>>> +49.228.74.898.0
>>> 
>>> Am 22.04.2013 um 22:41 schrieb "David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>:
>>> 
>>>> I agree with Chuck and Robin.
>>>> David W. Maher
>>>> Senior Vice President – Law & Policy
>>>> Public Interest Registry
>>>> 312 375 4849
>>>> 
>>>> From: THOMAS RICKERT <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Date: Monday, April 22, 2013 3:26 PM
>>>> To: Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>>>> <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Christopher 
>>>> RASSI (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>)" 
>>>> <christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>>, 
>>>> "Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
>>>> <Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Catherine 
>>>> Gribbin 
>>>> <Catherine.Gribbin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Catherine.Gribbin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC 
>>>> comments
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Stéphane, all,
>>>> thank you for your e-mail and thanks to Chuck and Robin for responding. 
>>>> Can I ask more WG members to respond to this, please?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> =============
>>>> thomas-rickert.tel
>>>> +49.228.74.898.0
>>>> 
>>>> Am 19.04.2013 um 14:58 schrieb Stephane Hankins 
>>>> <shankins@xxxxxxxx<mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 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;
>>>> 
>>>> -        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.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>>  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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas 
>>>> Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> Cc:        "Christopher RASSI 
>>>> (christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx<mailto:christopher.rassi@xxxxxxxx>)" <