Thanks David Lou On 12/10/2012 5:16 AM, David Cake wrote: > My *personal* opinions, that I under stand may not be shared by > others, but that I think are worth noting, as answers to the questions > below > Cheers > > David > > On 08/12/2012, at 2:45 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> Our inputs are being actively solicited. There's a group of >> Councilors that I believe includes Wolfgang and Mary who've been >> closely engaged on this, but other members may take an interest as >> well. May I suggest that anyone who'd like to help craft a timely >> and cutting ed response be in touch with them ASAP? Let's broaden >> the circle of involvement if we can…. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *Glen de Saint Géry <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Date: *December 8, 2012 12:33:11 AM GMT+04:00 >>> *To: *William Drake <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Cc: *Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Berry Cobb Mail <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, Brian Peck <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Subject: **Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and >>> INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)* >>> >>> Dear Bill, >>> >>> The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers >>> in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the NCUC’s input through >>> the attached Input Template also in text below: >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Glen >>> *Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template* >>> *Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group* >>> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY*_15 January 2013_*TO >>> THE GNSO SECRETARIAT ([log in to unmask] >>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>_), which will forward your >>> statement to the Working Group. >>> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested >>> stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, >>> to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and >>> organizations, in order to consider recommendations in relation to >>> the protection of names, designations and acronyms, hereinafter >>> referred to as “identifiers”, of intergovernmental organizations >>> (IGO’s) and international non-governmental organizations >>> (INGO’s)receiving protections under treaties and statutes under >>> multiple jurisdictions. >>> Part of the Working Group’s effort will be to incorporate ideas and >>> suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies >>> through this template Statement. Inserting your response in this >>> form will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the >>> responses for analysis. This information is helpful to the community >>> in understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. >>> However, you should feel free to add any information you deem >>> important to inform the Working Group’s deliberations, even if this >>> does not fit into any of the questions listed below. >>> For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: >>> >>> * http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ >>> * http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm >>> >>> *Process* >>> >>> -Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group / >>> Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group >>> >>> -Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group / >>> Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set >>> forth below >>> >>> -Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group / >>> Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below >>> >>> *Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been >>> tasked to address:* >>> As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there >>> is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at >>> the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG >>> should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in >>> the Final Issue Report: >>> ·Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special >>> Protection >>> ·Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International >>> Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; >>> ·Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of >>> names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; >>> ·Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC >>> designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. >>> Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is >>> a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all >>> existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, >>> the PDP WG is expected to: >>> ·Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special >>> protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO >>> organizations at the first and second levels. >>> ·Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC >>> names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and >>> make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. >>> ·Determine whether the current special protections being provided to >>> RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round >>> of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all >>> gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are >>> sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific >>> recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for >>> these identifiers. >>> *Questions to Consider:* >>> ** >>> >>> 1.What kinds of entities should be considered for Special >>> Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? >>> > There are two elements that need to be satisfied in order for Special > Protections to apply. > The first is that there are legal basis for International protection > of a particular string. > The second is that the legal rights covering the string are not > provided by existing protection mechanisms (and are not best satisfied > by small changes to existing protection mechanisms). > So the IOC, ICRC, and IGO/INGOs are perhaps examples where we should > consider the need for Special Protection, but unless it can be shown > that rights beyond those already granted by existing RPMs are > necessary they should not necessarily be granted. Special Protection > should be considered only when options for granting protection via all > existing RPMs have been exhausted. I do not believe this has been > shown for any of the above entities yet (though it is my expectation > that the ICRC is likely to be able to make that case in a full PDP > process). > >>> 2.What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective >>> basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic >>> Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? >>> > > Personally, I am aware of the Geneva convention in the case of the > ICRC, and the range of accompanying legislation. > > It should be noted that the Treaty of Nairobi does NOT form an > objective basis for special protection, nor does the legislation > protecting the national use of IOC marks at the national level as > implemented by a range of governments (primarily past Olympic host > nations). > >>> 3.Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for >>> Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? >>> >>> Group View: >>> >>> 4.Do you think there are substantive differences between the >>> RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? >>> > There are substantive, significant, differences between the ICRC and > the IOCs claims, and between IGOs and INGOs. > In particular, only the ICRC has the power to prevent registration of > trademarks for uses unrelated to its own use. Eg. trademarks unrelated > to sporting competition exist on the word Olympic, and the IOC does > not have the power to prevent their use in commerce, and trademarks on > terms that are concidentally connected with IGOs/INGOs exist (for > example, trademarks exist on the use of the term WHO despite the World > Health Organisation) and the corresponding organisations are not able > to prevent their use in legitimate commerce. Accordingly, while RPMs > may certainly apply to protect inappropriate use, Special Protection > is inappropriate. > >>> 5.Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level >>> for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? >>> >>> Group View: >>> > > Appropriate measures should be in place, whether Special Protections > are necessary should be the outcome of a policy process. > Currently, I do not believe the case has been made. Arguments have > primarily focussed on cost minimisation for IGOs and INGOs, which is > an argument that should not be used to overrule legitimate uses of > trademarks by others. > > >>> 6.In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of >>> IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round >>> of new gTLDs? >>> >>> Group View: >>> >>> 7.Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and >>> IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new >>> gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific >>> recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you >>> have? >>> > > These current Special Protections are not based on a full examination > of all appropriate rights (that the IOC and ICRC, whose claims are > based on extremely different legal bases, are considered identically > is clear proof). They should be considered a stop-gap measure to be > replaced by the results of a more thorough process as soon as > practical. They should be renewed only after a full examination of the > legal bases for their claims and how they compare to existing RPMs. >>> >>> 8.Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD >>> program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs >>> (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs >>> and INGOs)? >>> >>> Group View: >>> > > UDRP (and URS) should not be exclusive for trademark rights, but > should include other rights. > But with minor changes such as this, RPMs should be sufficient for the > majority of IGOs and INGOs. > >>> *For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, >>> please see:* >>> ** >>> ·Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web >>> page(seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). >>> ·Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue Report, >>> for insight into the current practices and issues experienced >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf). >>> ·The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts >>> were combined with this PDP >>> (seehttp://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm). >>> Glen de Saint Géry >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> >> <IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc> >> >