Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
Carl Smith
lectriclou at HOTMAIL.COM
Mon Dec 10 14:49:48 CET 2012
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 <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>>> *Date: *December 8, 2012 12:33:11 AM GMT+04:00
>>> *To: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>> *Cc: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail at berrycobb.com
>>> <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>>, Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org
>>> <mailto:brian.peck at icann.org>>, "gnso-secs at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>> *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 (_gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>> <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>_), 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
>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>>> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
>> <IGO-INGO_Input_Request_SG-C_v1.0.doc>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20121210/ccc3d4e0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list