<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-NZ link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is an interesting discussion, but I agree with others that the real issue is not whether the Red Cross is “special” enough to ask for particular privileges. A similar case can be made for Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or any other the several hundred civil society groups that have special United Nations status under UN accreditation guidelines.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The real issue is: do we allocate special privileges to particular categories of registrants and, if so, on what grounds? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>IPR protection has its place, but it is only one point of reference and generally a very blunt tool which with to carve out policy principles for domain names that are fair to everyone. The IOC, for example, has a discriminatory policy in relation to use of its mark. It allows the use of “Olympic” for many purposes, including for sporting events for disabled people, but has not allowed this for gay and lesbian sporting events. The result is that GLBTI athletes can use such international sporting events to qualify for IOC and other sports rankings (and, as a result, to compete in the Olympics), event organisers can only use the words “Gay Games” or similar.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>To allow the IOC to perpetuate this discrimination at the second level – for example in relation to .gay – would be wrong. The GAC should be asked if it is willing to acknowledge these points, and to work constructively towards a policy framework that takes us beyond a simple reserve list that can privilege and reinforce existing inequities. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Joy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David Cake<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 11 October 2011 12:41 a.m.<br><b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: NCSG input on request for special privileges for Red Cross & International Olympic Committee regarding Internet domains<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>KK is a trademark law superstar, and I'm not a lawyer at all. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I'd point out a few points here though - <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- yes, of course the Geneva Conventions are not about trademark law. That is of course why they are asking for *special* privileges, if the conventions simply granted them trademarks they would already have adequate protection. There are very few parts of international law that concern the use and display of particular forms of words that aren't trademark law - and they should be treated specially precisely because they aren't trademarks (which already enjoy far too much protection within ICANN for my taste). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>- I don't think it is article 44 (that KK quotes) that is the most pertinent part of the conventions here, but article 53<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>"<span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";background:white'>Art. 53. The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation " Red Cross " or " Geneva Cross " or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times."</span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";background:white'>That article appears to clearly prohibit the use of both the emblem, and the designation, separately. 'Or', not 'and'. </span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>- that said, I am aware that there is a body of law and precedent here - for example, I know there is the American Red Cross vs Johnson and Johnson case etc. - and there is so complexity. I'm certainly not claiming that the GACs proposal should go forward as is, without further detailed legal opinions and policy process - merely that it looks as if there is enough of a case for special privileges for the Red Cross/Crescent/etc that the proposal should be taken seriously.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Cheers</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>David</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 08/10/2011, at 7:02 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>From: David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a><<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">mailto:dave@difference.com.au</a>>><br>Reply-To: David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a><<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">mailto:dave@difference.com.au</a>>><br>Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 04:48:08 +0100<br>To: "<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>" <<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>>><br>Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG input on request for special privileges for Red Cross & International Olympic Committee regarding Internet domains<br><br>On 05/10/2011, at 8:36 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:<br><br>I will agree with you that I also share the opinion that the Red Cross should be nominated for sainthood. The question is though - should that be a reason for special privileges?<br>The philanthropic activities of the Red Cross should not qualify it for special privileges.<br><br>The Geneva Convention, and various national laws that implement it nationally, do, however, specifically protect not just the Red Cross symbol, but the words 'Red Cross'. The vast majority of the states in the world are parties to the Conventions. The words Red Cross are granted unique special legal status in terms of their use in many, if not most, legal jurisdictions.<br><br>So, the philanthropic nature of the Red Cross should not qualify it for special privilege. The Geneva Conventions, however, make a pretty good case.<br><br>KK: Two issues that should be clarified here: first of all, the Geneva conventions establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of of the victims of war. These conventions do not relate to trademark protection, so taking them out of that context to justify special trademark privileges is not right.<br><br>Secondly, the Geneva convention states: "Art. 44. With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the red cross on a white ground and the words " Red Cross" or " Geneva Cross " may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters." - Watch the word 'and' between the emblem and the the words 'Red Cross' - this is to identify that that word should be protected when it is associated by the emblem. This is trademark law at its most basic. And, in any case, even if we are to interpret it otherwise, this protection is based on the idea of the Convention to promote humanitarian efforts – nowhere in the convention does it state that the term 'red cross' should receive special trademark protection.<br><br>So we should really be careful when taking things out of context – the Geneva conventions are not trademark conventions.<br><br>Cheers<br><br>KK<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>