<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-7">
<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 name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed";
panose-1:2 7 6 6 8 6 6 2 2 3;}
/* 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;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Cambria","serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@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-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D'>Here we have a very bad precedent set – the fact that ICANN was willing to entertain the demands (partial) of IOC and the Red Cross would inevitably create problems and it has. These IGOs believe that they should have the same rights as these two organizations, and they sort of have a point if you put all of them within the same basket of Treaty organizations. But, the issue here is much bigger – I think we should make clear that ICANN is neither a legislator nor an enforcer of trademark rights. What these organizations are asking ICANN is to interpret trademark law Treaties – this is just huge and problematic. I have blogged about it here: <a href="http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/12/we-dont-accept-any-more-reservations-icann-pressured-to-reserve-names.html">http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2011/12/we-dont-accept-any-more-reservations-icann-pressured-to-reserve-names.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D'>KK<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Senior Lecturer,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>University of Strathclyde,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>The Law School,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Graham Hills building, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>UK<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'><a href="http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765">http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765</a></span><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-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Selected publications: <a href="http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038">http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Bodoni MT Condensed","serif";color:#1F497D'>Website: <a href="http://www.komaitis.org">www.komaitis.org</a></span><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:"Cambria","serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><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>McTim<br><b>Sent:</b> Τρίτη, 20 Δεκεμβρίου 2011 6:29 πμ<br><b>To:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Open letter to ICANN from the Legal Counsels of intergovernmental organizations<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt'>Hi David,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM, David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'> The arguments against are all similar/equivalent.<br> The arguments for are different, however.<br> I think the position can be argued that treaties/legislation granting special rights to the IOC and RC have strong arguments against them, they have nevertheless been ratified/passed and it is not ICANNs position to reopen the issue but simply to acknowledge decisions already made.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>International treaty rights give special privileges in the DNS?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>I thought that was done by RFC?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>.example as well as <a href="http://example.org">example.org</a> for instance.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>While the other rights being asked for are not currently reflected in legislation or treaty, and it IS within ICANNs purview to review (and reject if appropriate) requests to grant new rights.<br> I'm not saying I personally take this position. I personally think the IOC request is an ambit claim and the case in favour is insufficient. But I think that someone who takes the IOC and RC treaty justification seriously could quite consistently accept the IOC and RC positions, while rejecting the other IGOs seeking to protect their aconyms.<br>Personally, I think the RC case for special treatment is considerably stronger than the IOCs, and the IOCs case far stronger than other other IGOs. I very much think the three different cases should be argued on their respective merits.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>Everybody thinks they are special, and everybody wants a pony.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>-- <o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:36.0pt'>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>