RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sure  the RCRC representatives in the group will answer.  In the meantime, 
this might be helpful with regard to the Red Crystal (from 
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm):

2005 

In December 2005 during the Diplomatic Conference in Geneva, the States adopted 
Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, creating an additional 
emblem alongside the red cross and red crescent. The new emblem - known as the 
red crystal - resolves several issues that the Movement has faced over the 
years, including:

                the possibility for countries unwilling to adopt the red cross 
or the red crescent to join the Movement as full members by using the red 
crystal;

                the possibility of using the red cross and the red crescent 
together.

2006 

In June 2006, an International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent met 
in Geneva to amend the statutes of the Movement to take into account the 
creation of the new emblem.

2007 

On 14 January 2007, the Third Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva 
Conventions entered into force (six months after the two first countries 
ratified it). This completes the process of establishing an additional emblem 
for use by Governments and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
Movement.

Also, it is my understanding that the Red Lion and Sun is a recognized symbol 
of the RCRC societies in the Geneva Convention and that this was reaffirmed in 
the 2005 Protocol III mentioned above.

Greg Shatan

Gregory S. Shatan 
Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
IP | Technology | Media 
ReedSmithLLP 
The business of relationships
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 | Phone
917.816.6428 | Mobile
212.521.5450 | Fax
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.reedsmith.com 

________________________________

m: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.
Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; J. Scott Evans; Neuman, Jeff; Konstantinos Komaitis; 
Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC



Hi everyone just wanted to repeat the qs I asked at the council yesterday 
regarding Red Cross extensions that include Red Crystal and Red Lion and Sun 
and phrases wrt these terms.  Wanted see if I could more info on that...basis 
and protections of the phrases etc.




Best regards, 

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.

Sent from my iPad

On 11 Mar 2012, at 10:50, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



        The fact that the GAC may not have full consensus should not be 
surprising.  It would probably be more surprising if they did -- on this or any 
other issue.
         
        As for the OECD, I think their letter was based largely on a set of 
false premises and a lack of understanding of the rationale for setting the IOC 
and RCRC apart.  I'm sure this was not intentional, but it does discount the 
substance of their concerns.
         
        In a sense, I am sympathetic with their desire to bootstrap IGOs onto 
the proposed protection for the IOC/RCRC.  We know that they would like similar 
protections.  It's not surprising that they would try to make an argument that 
they are just like or better than the IOC/RCRC.  The fact that they could not 
come up with a high quality argument is a sign that it will not be so easy to 
argue convincingly that IGO's are the same as the IOC/RCRC and thus entitled to 
the same protection.  "Slippery slope" arguments like those made below only 
work when distinctions are difficult to draw between those included and those 
excluded.  Where there are clear distinctions, as there are here, a slippery 
slope argument really doesn't hold water, and can even tend to be a "scare 
tactic."  For example, one of the potential Republican nominees for US 
President, Rick Santorum, has used such specious slippery slope arguments in 
attempts to support his opposition to gay sex and marriage: 

        "[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would 
consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if 
the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within 
your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, 
you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery." -- Rick Santorum 
on gay sex, AP interview

        "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my 
knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's 
not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one 
thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality." 
-- Rick Santorum, AP interview

        Thus, I would tend to discard the slippery slope argument that if IOC 
and RCRC opens the door to every other group that would like the same 
protections, and that the only way to deal with future petitioners is to bar 
the door to the IOC and RCRC.
         
        Thank you.
         
        Greg Shatan 
         
        
        
________________________________

        From: Winterfeldt, Brian [mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:55 AM
        To: 'J. Scott Evans'; Neuman, Jeff
        Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Shatan, 
Gregory S.; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
        
        
        
        Dear All,
        
        I support Jeff as well.  I think the path forward should not change 
unless there is a different directive given by the GAC.
         
        Best regards,
        
        Brian
         
        Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
        Steptoe & Johnson LLP 
         
         
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [ 
<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
        Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:34 AM
        To: Neuman, Jeff
        Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory 
Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
         
         
        Dear All, 
         
        I completely agree with Jeff.   Our job at this point is to stat the 
course.  The issues raised by OECD are for the GAC to debate and come to 
consensus and, even then, we could conclude that NGO protection is unwarranted.
         
        J. Scott
         
        Sent from my iPad
         
        On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
         
        > 
        > Konstantinos,
        > 
        > The correspondence yesterday was the same correspondence we have had 
for months.  Lets not jump to any conclusions because of the statements of a 
VERY small minority of GAC members.  Remember, the GAC cannot change course 
without a consensus of the GAC.  If the Chair, the US, the EU and others object 
to changing course within the GAC, then the GAC cannot by its very definition 
of consensus change course.
        > 
        > Lets not make more of this issue than it is at this point.  Plus, 
remember, if the GAC were to change course, we could always say no.  And yes, 
there is a rationale to treat the IOC and Red Cross differently than the other 
OECD organizations (according to the GAC).  The GAC letter explained that and 
it was reiterated by Greg in his insightful e-mail.
        > 
        > Best regards,
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 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.
        > 
        > 
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Konstantinos Komaitis [ <mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:27 AM
        > To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory 
Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
        > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
        > 
        > Dear all,
        > 
        > I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can 
only comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do 
appreciate the argument that the official GAC position has not changed (meaning 
there is not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking for a change of 
course) the fact that we heard various GAC members expressing reservations and 
the potential implications of such protections should certainly be taken on 
board. This is significant as it manifests that the GAC might not be speaking 
as one voice in this issue; at the very minimum, these are new considerations 
that the DT should take on board.
        > 
        > At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that 
came from the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that 
it is very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, more 
will come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of protection. and, 
one could easily argue that there is potentially a more valid claim for these 
orgs to have their names protected than the IOC or the Red Cross. Are we really 
suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for instance, is more important or 
valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO?
        > 
        > I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the 
same way we have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, 
which I believe are significant.
        > 
        > Thanks
        > 
        > Konstantinos
        > 
        > From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
        > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000
        > To: Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
 Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
        > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
        > 
        > 
        > It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather 
requesting a change of direction before we would consider changing course.  We 
have based our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until 
she as chair states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only rely 
on the official request we have.  On a side note, I would be very bothered if 
the GAC changed their request significantly after we had gone to all the effort 
we have to be responsive to their request and would like to think they wouldn't 
do that.
        > 
        > Chuck
        > 
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: 
owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
Neuman, Jeff
        > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM
        > To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc- 
dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'
        > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC I do not think 
that this is a wise way forward.  We cannot allow what a very few members of 
the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from our overall position and 
recommendations.  I got a full briefing on the GAC discussion yesterday and do 
not believe we need to change course.
        > We should only change our course if during today's discussion between 
the GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so.  It is really not fair for us 
to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC members state.  It 
would be like another group changing their course on what only a few few 
Councilors state.  GAC members, like Councilors, are diverse.  Simply because a 
small percentage of Councilors feel one way and express their views, that may 
not impact the view of the COuncil as a whole.
        > Sent with Good ( <http://www.good.com> www.good.com)
        >  -----Original Message-----
        > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
        > [ <mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
        > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
        > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; 
gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>;
        > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        > Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
        > Greogry:
        > I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can 
understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and reconsider 
the statements below.  While we should welcome their input, a discussion that 
is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a dead end.
        > Wolfgang:
        > This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will 
understand. What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) 
it became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan 
and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other GAC 
members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and the UK. 
The European Commission  was outspoken in calling similar rights for IGOs. I 
respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members of those 
organisations and the UK and the US government will not support any attempt by 
an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name protected in all variations 
(as the "four" red organisations have done this now with 100+ words and 
combination of words) But what will happen if the UK and the US do not have a 
majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday was that I see a risk that we are 
pulled into an endless debate over who is in a "unique position" and gets sp!
        ec!
        >  ial rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that 
there "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC.
        > And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing 
that they are "unique" and than 50?
        > To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board 
letters my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the 
protection of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention 
any single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the 
protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early warning 
and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any misuse by third 
parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 200.000.00 USD to 
start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the International 
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they would probably 
consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other IOC is an 
intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that we are in a 
rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is what we do for 
the first phase. We will review this in the light of experiences with the first 
phase and will come back with!
          a!
        >  dditional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - 
which has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this 
is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we will 
come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later.
        > To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that 
yesterdays discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to 
rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and 
followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real 
consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also our 
approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument.
        > And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the
        > 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of 
Steve, why he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than 
we should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the 
board. As an African Union member state  I would raise the issue why a 
non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this to 
the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to become 
be pulled into such an endless chain of controver!
        >  sial discussions.
        > Thank you.
        > Wolfgang
        > 
        > 
        > 
        > 
         
         
         
         
        
        
        
        * * * 
         
        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