It seems that Mike R's suggestion fits perfectly with what the UN Legal Services letter calls for. And *IF* we have to go down this road, I strongly agree with Mike that they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as
would any other complaining party. In fact, the only difference should be arbitration due to the immunity issue.
 

Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] FW: [REGYCON] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
From: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@icann.org>
Date: Fri, November 30, 2007 11:17 am
To: "'Gomes, Chuck'" <cgomes@verisign.com>
Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org>, "'David W. Maher'" <dmaher@pir.org>

Thanks, Chuck and David!
Just one comment: When it comes to my “b”, I believe the legal basis for protection of IGO names and abbreviations as domain names based on the existing Paris Convention has been clarified thru the UN Legal Services letter on the subject from March 2005, see: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/michel-to-cerf-23mar05.pdf .
Very best regards
Olof
 
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: den 30 november 2007 17:55
To: Olof Nordling
Cc: council@gnso.icann.org; David W. Maher
Subject: [council] FW: [REGYCON] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
 
Olof,
 
Here is David's response to your query.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
 
 

From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of David W. Maher
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:39 AM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: [REGYCON] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

Olof:
Chuck Gomes asked me to reply to your question:
about the inner meaning of what you call the “treaty route”. Would that imply
a) all IGOs do like the Red Cross and nail the name protection in their respective treaties
or
b) some overarching treaty for all IGOs clarifying name protection for them all, a kind of “Paris Convention +”
or
c) something else?

The answer is all of the above. The "treaty route" is the way nations to protect their national interests and the jurisdiction of their courts. 
David
David W. Maher                    !
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy    
Public Interest Registry                    
1775 Wiehle Ave, #102A
Reston, VA 20190  USA
(v) +1-312-876-8055              
(f)  +1-312-876-7934    
http://www.pir.org

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential an d may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and deleting this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.