GAC Communiqué from Toronto
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto and attached for your convenience. Several things of particular note: - The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs and not just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight. - The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves). - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient. Alan
Thanks for circulating this , Alan. It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms. Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection. The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs and not just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Good morning, Carlton and Alan: It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto. *"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."* *If:* "the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."... *Then:* Why the specific request for protection of these two entities in the first place? Best regards, Ron On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms.
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<; http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
Thank you Alan, I agree with Carlton and Ron. On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 5:18 AM, Ron Sherwood <ron@vitechnicalservices.com>wrote:
Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto.
*"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."*
*If:* "the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."... *Then:* Why the specific request for protection of these two entities in the first place?
Best regards, Ron
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms.
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<; http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Aaah, nice catch, Ron! Very good question indeed! - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Ron Sherwood <ron@vitechnicalservices.com>wrote:
Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto.
*"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."*
*If:* "the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."... *Then:* Why the specific request for protection of these two entities in the first place?
Best regards, Ron
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms.
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<; http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be
protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the
RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
Quick answer: Because they don't want the hassle and cost incurred by other name-holders (clearinghouse, URS/UDRP) and have convinced the GAC that their legal titles are more important than those of the private sector. This is all the more curious because my understanding is that international treaty/law protects the IOC graphic symbol (five rings in that colour/pattern) but not the word "olympic". So... in other words (if this is accurate), they are asking ICANN to extend beyond existing protections in the outside world. At very least, this is not as clear-cut as the GAC would suggest. - Evan On 22 October 2012 14:27, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Aaah, nice catch, Ron!
Very good question indeed!
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Ron Sherwood <ron@vitechnicalservices.com>wrote:
Good morning, Carlton and Alan:
It seems to me that there is conflicted reasoning in the GAC Communiqué from Toronto.
*"> - The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."*
*If:* "the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient."... *Then:* Why the specific request for protection of these two entities in the first place?
Best regards, Ron
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for circulating this , Alan.
It makes sense the list of those IGO for automatic protection begin with those eligible for .int registration. That may even have a few competing for acronyms.
Given the method of developing the list, we need to keep a sharp eye on the extended list for protection.
The argument regarding IOC/ROC needs further study since these may not enjoy the same rights and/or duties and/or responsibilities in the law of the several jurisdictions. This is where I think a PDP might be useful to ferret out those facts.
- Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================
On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-**Toronto<; http://tinyurl.com/ICANN-GAC-Toronto>and attached for your convenience.
Several things of particular note:
- The GAC is insisting that for ALL new gTLDs andnot just Community TLDs, the commitments made in their applications must be incorporated into their contracts and subject to compliance oversight.
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be
protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the
RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hi, Re; RCRC Movement If it is International Law, than why has this never been acted on in any International court. There must certainly be second level infringements in the incumbent gTLDs of the constraints the RCRC wishes put in place (I haven't checked, I am just assuming) that could have been judged in International tribunals. Certainly infringement of the RCRC movement symbols on a battlefield would have been challenged in the blink of an eye. Also, while the GAC can give valuable advice, it is not an arbtrar of International Law. Nor does it make law. I certainly think that the PDP should look into this seriously and I think the pointer to .int policy is a very useful clue. But I also agree with those who say this is an ICANN policy matter. In the absence in rulings by duly constituted tribunals at the correct International level, it is for the muti-stakeholder ICANN process to develop and apply policy that meets the existing International requirements to the best of our understanding. I look forward to the PDP WG. I have, incidentally, reached out to one of my teachers, a veteran of the IFRC, from the Diplo Humanitarian Diplomacy course (where I learned an immense amount about the IFRC & RCRC movement), to join the WG when it forms. He will certainly raise the level of discussion. avri On 20 Oct 2012, at 21:36, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Re; RCRC Movement
If it is International Law, than why has this never been acted on in any International court. There must certainly be second level infringements in the incumbent gTLDs of the constraints the RCRC wishes put in place (I haven't checked, I am just assuming) that could have been judged in International tribunals. Certainly infringement of the RCRC movement symbols on a battlefield would have been challenged in the blink of an eye. Also, while the GAC can give valuable advice, it is not an arbtrar of International Law. Nor does it make law.
I certainly think that the PDP should look into this seriously and I think the pointer to .int policy is a very useful clue. But I also agree with those who say this is an ICANN policy matter. In the absence in rulings by duly constituted tribunals at the correct International level, it is for the muti-stakeholder ICANN process to develop and apply policy that meets the existing International requirements to the best of our understanding.
I agree.
I look forward to the PDP WG. I have, incidentally, reached out to one of my teachers, a veteran of the IFRC, from the Diplo Humanitarian Diplomacy course (where I learned an immense amount about the IFRC & RCRC movement), to join the WG when it forms. He will certainly raise the level of discussion.
That's Awesome Avri.
avri
On 20 Oct 2012, at 21:36, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
For the record, the GAC did not use the term "international law", it was "international legal instrucments" which if I remember correctly, are agreements between countries. Presumably any action against use of the terms would be at a national level (or UDRP for registered names if also registered as trrademarks). Alan At 22/10/2012 02:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Re; RCRC Movement
If it is International Law, than why has this never been acted on in any International court. There must certainly be second level infringements in the incumbent gTLDs of the constraints the RCRC wishes put in place (I haven't checked, I am just assuming) that could have been judged in International tribunals. Certainly infringement of the RCRC movement symbols on a battlefield would have been challenged in the blink of an eye. Also, while the GAC can give valuable advice, it is not an arbtrar of International Law. Nor does it make law.
I certainly think that the PDP should look into this seriously and I think the pointer to .int policy is a very useful clue. But I also agree with those who say this is an ICANN policy matter. In the absence in rulings by duly constituted tribunals at the correct International level, it is for the muti-stakeholder ICANN process to develop and apply policy that meets the existing International requirements to the best of our understanding.
I look forward to the PDP WG. I have, incidentally, reached out to one of my teachers, a veteran of the IFRC, from the Diplo Humanitarian Diplomacy course (where I learned an immense amount about the IFRC & RCRC movement), to join the WG when it forms. He will certainly raise the level of discussion.
avri
On 20 Oct 2012, at 21:36, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi, The distinction between International law and International legal instruments is interesting because these are just one component of International Law. Thanks for the clarification. I think, however, that we need to be cognizant of International Law, not just the legal instruments. I also think that the RCRC movements arguments go beyond the international legal instruments. On the difference between the issues, ie. ICRC, IFRC, RCRC movement (the national organizations). As far as I understand: RedCoss.tld is an IFRC issue AmericanRedCross.tld or SvenskaRödKorset.tld or מגןדודאדום.tld are national movement issues - are these included in the moratorium? Have there been any national movement lawsuits or governmental actions? I believe there have been UDRP actions, but that makes them more like everybody else. I think this is data we need to collect as part of the policy process. avri On 22 Oct 2012, at 16:15, Alan Greenberg wrote:
For the record, the GAC did not use the term "international law", it was "international legal instrucments" which if I remember correctly, are agreements between countries. Presumably any action against use of the terms would be at a national level (or UDRP for registered names if also registered as trrademarks).
Alan
At 22/10/2012 02:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
Re; RCRC Movement
If it is International Law, than why has this never been acted on in any International court. There must certainly be second level infringements in the incumbent gTLDs of the constraints the RCRC wishes put in place (I haven't checked, I am just assuming) that could have been judged in International tribunals. Certainly infringement of the RCRC movement symbols on a battlefield would have been challenged in the blink of an eye. Also, while the GAC can give valuable advice, it is not an arbtrar of International Law. Nor does it make law.
I certainly think that the PDP should look into this seriously and I think the pointer to .int policy is a very useful clue. But I also agree with those who say this is an ICANN policy matter. In the absence in rulings by duly constituted tribunals at the correct International level, it is for the muti-stakeholder ICANN process to develop and apply policy that meets the existing International requirements to the best of our understanding.
I look forward to the PDP WG. I have, incidentally, reached out to one of my teachers, a veteran of the IFRC, from the Diplo Humanitarian Diplomacy course (where I learned an immense amount about the IFRC & RCRC movement), to join the WG when it forms. He will certainly raise the level of discussion.
avri
On 20 Oct 2012, at 21:36, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- The GAC has added IGOs to the list of organizations to be protected prior to the delegation of the first new TLD, and that this protection be given to those IGOs who are eligible for registration under .int. They have committed, however, to develop a list of names and acronyms that should be protected (since registries cannot work from the .int criteria themselves).
- The GAC is questioning the need to have a PDP to protect the RC/IOC names since in their mind, the international instruments and national laws should be sufficient.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At 22/10/2012 06:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The distinction between International law and International legal instruments is interesting because these are just one component of International Law. Thanks for the clarification. I think, however, that we need to be cognizant of International Law, not just the legal instruments. I also think that the RCRC movements arguments go beyond the international legal instruments.
As I understood the various documents (from GAC and the Board external legal review), the difference RC?IOC and the rest is the combination of international agreements coupled with national laws for the former. Certainly not my area aof expertise, but that statement was made repeatedly.
On the difference between the issues, ie. ICRC, IFRC, RCRC movement (the national organizations). As far as I understand:
RedCoss.tld is an IFRC issue
Perhaps, but their various national counterparts seem to take responsibility for defending the core name within their territories (or so it sounds from the various descriptions I have heard).
AmericanRedCross.tld or SvenskaRödKorset.tld or .tld are national movement issues - are these included in the moratorium?
Do not believe so.
Have there been any national movement lawsuits or governmental actions? I believe there have been UDRP actions, but that makes them more like everybody else.
The UDRPs are based, I think, on the fact that some local Red Cross organizations have trademarked the names in their territories.
I think this is data we need to collect as part of the policy process.
Agreed.
avri
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Ron Sherwood -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro