[gnso-iocrc-dt] Adobe Connect - Chat Transcript from International Olympic Committee and Red Cross Names 11-07-2012

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

  Brian Peck:GNSO IOC/RCRC DT Meeting/Call, 11 July, 2012
  Nathalie  Peregrine:debra Hughes and J Scott Evans have just joined the audio 
bridge
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Stephane Hankins has joined the bridge
  Thomas Rickert:Hi all, I just joined!
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Mary Wong has joined the audio bridge
  avri:Alan: what does "with all due respect" mean to you?
  avri:I think this can be a very focused PDP, and I think it can be done 
before we get the first new gTLDs.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Thomas:  We would be interested to understand if/when the 
IOC/RC legal situation was specifically contemplated in the Reserved Names 
Working Group?  After an admittedly quick review, I haven't found anything.  
  Chuck Gomes:As I recall as chair of the Reserved Names WG, I do not believe 
that the specific needs of IOC/RCRC were considered.  If there is anyone that 
recalls differently, please correct me.  But we did discuss the possibility of 
granting any additional reserved names at the second level in general and 
decided against it.  We also decided not to recommend reservations for 
geographic names.
  Jeff Neuman:I remember WIPO II talked about IGOs. but not these 
organizations.  I remember questions being submitted to the GAC and WIPO about 
IGO protections and getting a legal analysis, but I dont believe we got a 
response.
  avri:I was in the group, and while I do not remember any specicfic discussion 
one would have to go back to the rchives to be sure.  What we did do was 
consider every case that was brought u[p.  The=IGOs have been trying for years 
to get a recognitionof their treaty based rights.  And they were considered.  
So the group in conisdering these and Geographic went far beyond trademark into 
rights granted words, strings or designations by treaty or convention (by 
Governments).  And all who presented arguments for protection were considered.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Thanks Chuck.  Since neither the IOC nor the RCRC are 
IGO's and both have unique legal positions, its fair to say that the GNSO 
hasn't contemplated this issue as Thomas has inferred in his email.  
  avri:The GNSO did consider the wider issue that includes the types of 
arguments being made by RC/IOC
  Chuck Gomes:Not directly but we did generally.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:The legal position of IGO's and the legal position of the 
IOC and the RCRC are very different.  
  avri:and yet, in being simlar to each other are also simlar to others.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:how so avri? 
  avri:Zahid: and yes the RC was an active members of the GNSO at the time of 
the IRT etc...
  avri:KM: You state that government actions, whether treaty, convenent and 
other isnstruments gives you rights.  This is the same claim that can be made 
by most if not all IIGO whose founding documents come fro government decsions.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:The difference between IGO's and IOC/RC lies in the text 
of the law. 
  avri:In any case, that calls for a process that looks at all of the claims 
made and decides which are similar and which are not.  First I heard that the 
case of IOC and RC were sui gneeris.  then I hear that they rest on the same 
foundation.  All I am asking for is that we clearlyu look at the foundations 
(legal, political etc) of all of the government based claims to see which 
belong to a class that already have protection for strings specifcially  in 
their law, and which doesn't and which of these reasons carry weight.
  Mary Wong:While the legal basis as between the IOC/RC and the other IGOs 
(i.e. particular treaties/nat'l laws vs. Art 6ter of the Paris Convention), 
should ICANN be making prescriptive recs based on which organizations decide to 
come forward? Wouldn't it be better to leave it to the Registries to determine 
how their registration policies will accommodate both int'l and nat'l laws?
  Mary Wong:(sorry, left out the phrase "may be different" after the 
parenthesis in my comment)
  Chuck Gomes:regardless of whether IOC/RCRC or IGOs were directly condidered 
by the RNWG, if we find sufficient cause to make changes now, we can recommend 
that.
  Mary Wong:@Chuck, true - but I don't think it is for this group to determine 
the "sufficient cause" on a somewhat piecemeal basis. Couldn't ICANN strongly 
recommend that new gTLD Registries consider protective registration policies 
that comply with the applicable laws, and explore both cost-cutting as well as 
speedy mechanisms that will allow these orgs to quickly and cheaply remediate 
infringing registrations that match the GAC's list?
  avri:Chick: that is why i argue for the PDP.  if there is cause, then tell 
the GAC yes, we saw just cause in both this and IGO and will do PDP ...
  avri:Chuck: aplogies not Chick
  Jeff Neuman:@Mary - who is ICANN in your question?  We are ICANN.  ICANN 
staff i do not believe has any authority to ask registries or registrars to do 
what you ask
  Zahid Jamil:i cannot recall this being discussed in the IRT or STI.
  avri:Zahid, and yet was RC in the room for those discussions?
  Chuck Gomes:@Mary - this group could recommend that the Council recommend 
that registries consider whether or not they want to provided added protection 
for their TLDs
  avri:Zahid: And for STI, they and their representatives were certainly arnd 
and certainly could have joined in and made their points.  At some point not 
particpating in the existing processes has to have a consequence.  At the very 
least, pointing back and saying it wasn't discussed, when you did not bring it 
up and could have, must have a consequence.
  Mary Wong:@Jeff, I meant we rec to the Council to reply to GAC (i.e. ICANN as 
community, or in this case at least, GNSO community)
  Mary Wong:@Chuck, yes
  avri:Debbie: does what you lead from the Treaty mean that if there is no Red 
Cross society in a particlar country then people are free to register the name 
as they please?
  avri:s/register/use/
  J. Scott:I think we have some new information that was NOT previously 
considered.  I also think that the prospect of 1400 +/- new gTLDs clearly is a 
change in circumstances.  It is also clear that the RPMs that have been 
developed are inadequate to provide the necessary protection.
  avri:aka substitue "regissrer' with "use" in the above stmt.
  J. Scott:aka I don't think the reasoning set out in Thomas's email is 
supportable.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the AC room
  avri:Actually Iasked whether the RC had been invovled in STI etc.. I said 
they were part of th g-council then and could have been invovled.
  Greg Shatan:I think the concept of "change" or "sufficient cause" is a red 
herring.  The RNWG report and deliberations do not serve as precedent on these 
issues (or the IGO issues generally).
  avri:I think GNSO POlicy has to be precedential and may not be ignored.
  J. Scott:Avri:  I don't think Greg is arguing that GNSO policy doesn't have 
precedent.  I think that he saying the fact that we have had a group consider 
similar issues does not preclude us from offering solutions/advce in this 
situation
  Greg Shatan:There is no current policy to regard as precedent.
  avri:I do not think we have discussed the idea of adding content to the 
current RPMs to have amything resembling consensus
  avri:Greg: there is a policy of NO special protections.
  avri:and while this may be a reason to consider a policy action on types of 
request that were not properly considered before.
  Greg Shatan:That is not an affirmative policy.  It 's just the lack of a 
policy.
  J. Scott:I agree with Chuck.
  avri:no it is a definitive no special protections pol;icy.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:The language of 6ter protects IGO's "as trademarks or as 
elements of trademarks."  
  Greg Shatan:Avro" Can you point me to the language where that policy is 
stated..
  Greg Shatan:Avri not Avro...
  avri:at this second no, but i will dig it up
  J. Scott:I think that is a sensible way forward.  This will help us reach out 
to our constituencies.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:also a quick reading... not to be taken as definitive
  J. Scott:thanks jefff and everyonone
  Greg Shatan:@Kiran, that reference is to prohibiting third parties from 
registering IGO names as trademarks, it does not regard them as trademarks.