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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Greg --

You raise good points and I agree with you to an extent.  The RrSG thinking is 
that generally speaking, strings of characters that represent acronyms of IGOs 
are, in most cases, applicable to other legitimate registrants.  Registrars are 
focused here on providing the broadest options and utility to customers, so 
restricting use is something to be careful about.

UNICEF is a good example of your point -- the acronym is probably the key 
identifier of the agency, while the full name is seldom used in everyday 
speech.  In looking over the GAC's list, though, there are all manner of 
character strings that at the second level would be of interest to registrants. 
 IDEA, for example.  A search on ISA shows lots of different groups, beyond the 
International Seabed Authority, that use that acronym.  WHO probably conjures 
different impressions, depending on your area of interest (public health, 
music, broadcasting, etc.).

So no, it's not a blanket statement, per se.  But I hope the point is clarified.

Mason


On Apr 25, 2013, at 6:28 PM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> I don’t think the statement “acronyms are broadly applicable and should be 
> made available to customers of all kinds” is antithetical to populating the 
> TMCH with IGO acronyms.  As noted on the call, IGO acronyms often perform a 
> “source identifying” function equal to if not more than the full name of the 
> organization (e.g., UNICEF).  Assuming we are just talking about TMCH 
> eligibility and not reservation of names, the acronyms would be on an even 
> footing with other source identifiers. For instance, if UNICEF or WHO is in 
> the TMCH, UNICEF and WHO then each has the option in each Sunrise each is 
> eligible for to register UNICEF.gtld or WHO.gtld or not.  If not, it will 
> fall through the sunrise and be available to any third party (a/k/a customers 
> of all kinds).
>  
> I would take issue with the blanket statement that “acronyms are broadly 
> applicable.”  Applied to UNICEF, the statement doesn’t stand up.  Many other 
> acronyms are distinctive and identified with particular organizations.  WIPO, 
> for instance.  Even WTO (the World Tourism Organization uses UNWTO as its 
> acronym to distinguish itself from the World Trade Organization).  In the IGO 
> space at least, this is probably false more often than it is true.  And where 
> there are multiple rightsholders, they’ll all end up in the TMCH together (if 
> they choose to).  So just like any other rightsholder, they would need to 
> make a series of decision regarding how to protect their good name (and I am 
> counting the acronym as a name), and how much to spend doing so.
>  
> I’m sure some trademark holders would prefer not to have “competition” in the 
> TMCH from IGOs, so I should emphasize that these are my opinions and not of 
> those of the IPC.
>  
> And we haven’t come back to the INGO issues….
> 
> Greg
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:10 PM
> To: Mason Cole; Lanre Ajayi
> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'; Maher, David; 'Stephane Hankins'; 
> gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; 'Christopher RASSI'; Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> 'Catherine Gribbin'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC 
> comments
>  
> Thanks Mason.  I suspect that the operational issues are solvable but that 
> still leaves the fact that “acronyms are broadly applicable and should be 
> made available to customers of all kinds”, a view that the RySG recognizes as 
> well.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mason Cole
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 4:54 PM
> To: Lanre Ajayi
> Cc: 'Thomas Rickert'; Maher, David; 'Stephane Hankins'; 
> gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx; 'Christopher RASSI'; Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> 'Catherine Gribbin'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Protection of the RCRC designations - RCRC 
> comments
>  
> 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>)" 
> <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>>
> 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).
> 
> 
>  
> <ATT-3.dat>
> 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<mailto: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<http://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. 
> ===============================================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on 
> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then 
> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
> purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
> cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you 
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice 
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended 
> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding 
> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local 
> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
> tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> 
> 
> 
>