RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views regarding protection at the second level
Q&A was most recently re-distributed by Jeff in his 24 Feb e-mail. Attached here also. Alan At 29/02/2012 11:40 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote: I can see the logic in that reading of the proposal, but I would not say it is at all clear from the document. I'm not sure I understand/recall what Q&A you're referring to -- can you point me in the right direction?Thanks! Greg ----------From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan GreenbergSent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 10:27 AMTo: Neuman, Jeff; Shatan, Gregory S.; Gomes, Chuck; Hughes, Debra Y.; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views regarding protection at the second levelI 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 AffairsThe 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@xxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] RE: RCRC views regarding protection at the second levelAs 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 GreenbergSent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:18 PMTo: 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 dont know how that can be automated. Similarly, how could a similarity test be done?ChuckFrom: <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 Jeffs 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 ICANNs 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 Applicants 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 Attachment:
IOC AND IRC RESERVATIONS IN NEW GTLDS QUESTIONS AND-ANSWERS1.PDF
|