RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views regarding protection at the second level

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I believe that that is correct on both counts.

When the proposal was first made, I was concerned 
about what was being requested at the second 
level. I knew that 2nd level names such as 
redcross-tsunami-relief were just the kind of 
names that were registered to capitalize on 
disasters, but also knew that "strings contained 
in" or sound-alikes or spelling permutations were 
almost impossible to cleanly prohibit. I 
specifically raised the issue and the response 
(verbally and then in the Q&A) was that the 
problem was understood and only exact-matches were being requested.
Alan

At 29/02/2012 10:07 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> Greg,
>
> That is at the top-level (String Similarity 
> Review).  At the second level, I believe Alan is 
> right that they only ask for identical matches 
> and in the 6 UN languages.  But I will go back and re-read.
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message 
> is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) 
> named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the 
> intended recipient you have received this e-mail 
> message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is 
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> communication in error, please notify us 
> immediately and delete the original message.
>
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
> Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 9:58 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg; Gomes, Chuck; Hughes, Debra Y.; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views 
> regarding protection at the second level
> As I read it, "denomination" simply means the 
> names Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun, 
> or Red Crystal -- why use a one syllable word 
> when a five syllable word will do?  :-)
> After taking a quick look at Article 53 of the 
> First Geneva Convention and some related 
> commentary, it appears that an "imitation," 
> placed in the context of the work of this group, 
> would be a string that would be confusingly 
> similar to one of the "denominations", such as 
> the "recrosssociety" example cited below.
> I think the GAC request goes beyond protection 
> of exact matches -- the final bullet point on 
> page 2 of the proposal specifically states that 
> the Olympic and Red Cross terms should receive 
> "consideration during the String Similarity review."
> Greg
>
>
> ----------
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:18 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Hughes, Debra Y.; 
> <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views 
> regarding protection at the second level
> I'm not at all sure what “any denomination” or 
> “an imitation thereof” mean, but the GAC Q&A was 
> quite clear that what was being requested was 
> only exact matches of the strings and their translations.
> But perhaps best to leave the 2nd level issues in abeyance this week...
>
> Alan
>
> At 28/02/2012 04:49 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> Thanks Debbie.  This is very helpful to me.
>
> I have concerns though about the following in 
> the next to last paragraph:  “Any registry 
> receiving a request of registration of a 
> second-level domain should therefore have an 
> automatic system by which the request for 
> registration of any denomination from the list 
> or an imitation thereof should raise a red flag, 
> requiring the registry to check whether the user 
> is legitimate.”  An automatic system is possible 
> if there is a list of names that are 
> excluded.  But when I see words like “any 
> denomination” or “an imitation thereof”, I don’t 
> know how that can be automated.  Similarly, how 
> could a similarity test be done?
> Chuck
>
> From: 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [ mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hughes, Debra Y.
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 2:15 PM
> To: <mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RCRC views regarding protection at the second level
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> 1. As a follow-up to Jeff’s email, we would like 
> to share our views in regards to the use of Red 
> Cross and Red Crescent denominations within second-level names.
> 2. The 1949 Geneva Conventions are binding for 
> virtually all States: 194 in total. In addition 
> to the Conventions themselves, the national 
> legislation of the States party to the 
> Conventions make it a criminal offence to use 
> the names “red cross”, “red crescent” and “red 
> lion and sun” unless they are used by legitimate 
> users; the 2005 Third Additional Protocol also 
> added a new name and emblem, called the “red 
> crystal”. Virtually all States of the world are 
> therefore under the same legal regime of the 
> Geneva Conventions, which prohibits the use of 
> these denominations, but also of their 
> “imitations”, to use the terminology of the 
> First Geneva Convention (Article 53).
> Therefore, any use of these denominations (or an 
> imitation of those) is illegal and may result in 
> criminal prosecution at national level, unless 
> they are used by any of the components of the 
> International Red Cross or Red Crescent 
> Movement, including its international bodies 
> (the International Committee of the Red Cross or 
> the International Federation of Red Cross and 
> Red Crescent Societies) or any of the National 
> Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies. There are 
> very few exceptions in which under a national 
> context a “non-Red Cross user” can use the name, 
> because of certain uses of the term that 
> predated the enactment of national legislation, 
> such as “Red Cross salt” in the US, but none of 
> these exceptions applies internationally, and 
> new exceptions are no longer possible.
> It is worth mentioning that this debate is not 
> taking place in the context of trademarks: as 
> surprising as it may seem, the use of the 
> denominations “red cross”, “red crescent”, "red 
> crystal" and "red lion and sun" are not merely 
> subject to trademark. As we noted above, the use 
> of these denominations for the Red Cross/Red 
> Crescent is protected by criminal laws.  Even in 
> regards to the above-mentioned exceptions, the 
> use of the name “Red Cross” would not result in 
> the payment of royalties to the Red Cross by 
> these grandfathered users. The interests at 
> stake relate to the protection of war victims 
> and our humanitarian mission-related activities, 
> not about commercial issues. This issue is not 
> about defending trademark rights, but ICANN’s 
> compliance with criminal laws in the 194 States, 
> including the US, for which the Geneva Conventions are binding.
> 3. In practice, the Red Cross/Red Crescent 
> frequently face issues related to the abuse of 
> their name and identity in second-level domain 
> names. For instance, a couple of weeks ago, a 
> scammer registered a domain name called 
> “recrosssociety” under an existing gTLD, and 
> that site was used to divert money. This 
> required legal action to be started, in order to 
> have the second-level domain name removed or at 
> least “emptied” from its contents by the 
> registry. The Red Cross/Red Crescent would 
> prefer to use the monies that are generously 
> donated to assist the worldwide communities the 
> Movement serves and not have to reallocate resources to address fraud.
> 4. The 1949 Geneva Conventions do not 
> distinguish between languages: although the 
> first version of the Applicant’s Guidebook 
> included a list of names in the six UN official 
> languages, to limit the prohibition to those 
> languages does not make sense: the prohibition 
> must prevail, in a given country, for all 
> languages commonly used in that country. As a 
> consequence, because domain names apply on a 
> transnational level, the prohibition must apply to all languages, as a rule.
> Of course, we understand that, for practical 
> purposes, the work of registries could be 
> tremendously facilitated by having a list of the 
> above-mentioned denominations in the languages 
> which are the most frequently used on the 
> Internet (around one hundred languages would 
> probably cover about 99% of the world 
> population). Any registry receiving a request of 
> registration of a second-level domain should 
> therefore have an automatic system by which the 
> request for registration of any denomination 
> from the list or an imitation thereof should 
> raise a red flag, requiring the registry to 
> check whether the user is legitimate. Failing 
> this, the application should be refused in order 
> to ensure the respect of existing norms of 
> international humanitarian law, and ensure that 
> the registry is also complying with national legislation.
> We are actively working with our member 
> Societies worldwide in order to know which 
> languages will be relevant for their respective 
> context. As agreed, we will do our utmost to 
> produce such a list before the ICANN Board meeting in Costa Rica.
> Best regards,
>
> Debra Hughes (American Red Cross)
> Christophe Lanord (International Federation of 
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies)
> Stéphane Hankins (International Committee of the Red Cross)
>
>
>
> Debra Y. Hughes
> Senior Counsel
>
> American Red Cross
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> 202.303.5356 (p)
> 202.303.0143 (f)
> <mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> []
> []
>
> This electronic message transmission contains 
> information from the Office of General Counsel 
> of the American Red Cross and may be 
> confidential or privileged.  The information is 
> intended to be for the use of the individual or 
> entity named above.  If you are not the intended 
> recipient, be aware that any disclosure, 
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
> this information is prohibited. If you have 
> received this electronic transmission in error, 
> please notify me immediately by telephone 
> 202.303.5356 or by e-mail at 
> <mailto:Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Debra.Hughes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Thank you.
>
>
>
> * * *
>
> 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.1.01.03
> pdc1