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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

1. I'm afraid I can't offer registrar support for this.
2. Yes.
3. Osvaldo raises another good point -- in the absence of a valid mark, how 
does the TMCH "know" it's dealing with the right person and organization?


On May 3, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Novoa, Osvaldo wrote:

> All,
> Yes on our part
> Yes, also.
> The validation of the IGO representative is an issue, the legal department 
> should look at it.
>  
> Best regards,
> Osvaldo
>  
> De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] En 
> nombre de Berry Cobb
> Enviado el: Jueves, 02 de Mayo de 2013 19:58
> Para: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] Topic #2 - IGO Acronyms in the TMCH
>  
> 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
> 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  
> - 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>)" <
> 
> El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido 
> únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser 
> confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al 
> remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el 
> e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está 
> prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por 
> cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del 
> mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier 
> comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad 
> de la Información
> 
> 
> This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the 
> addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender 
> immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached 
> files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity 
> that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible 
> for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security 
> Policy.