[gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #2 - IGO Acronyms in the TMCH

["Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

 

Judging by the responses and the Chair’s assessment thus far, it appears the 
best possible protections for IGO acronyms will be to have IGOs register their 
identifiers within the TMCH.  If the WG can respond to the list for the 
following questions:

 

1.       Is there broad support by WG members for the registration of IGO 
acronyms into the TMCH?

2.       Do WG members agree that if access to the TMCH were made possible, 
that this should be initiated by the IGOs seeking protection?

3.       Per the thread below, what other operational issues should be 
considered or discussed to enhance this possible recommendation?

 

I invite all stakeholders to respond with their position.  We will discuss this 
topic at our 8 May 2013 conference call.

 

Thank you.  B

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 23:49
To: Mason Cole
Cc: Lanre Ajayi; David W. Maher; 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

 

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 
<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-annex2-22mar13-en.pdf>
   

- 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>)" <