- Discussion-igo-rc - lists.icann.org

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] IGO Protections - Abu Dhabi
by Tom Dale Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Hi Jon It appears that the PDP on CRPM will not have finalised its report by Abu Dhabi but they will have an open meeting – see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2017-09-21+IGO-INGO+Access… Tom From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org" <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org> Date: Thursday, 28 September 2017 at 12:13 am To: "brucemelbit(a)gmail.com" <brucemelbit(a)gmail.com> Cc: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] IGO Protections - Abu Dhabi Dear Bruce, As the next ICANN meeting approaches, the time has come to see if I can obtain a budget to travel to Abu Dhabi. In this context, I would be grateful if you could let me know if there are any meetings of the discussion group on IGO protections planned during the next meeting. I note that the PDP working group on curative rights protection mechanisms has not yet released its final report; perhaps someone can shed light on the anticipated release date? Kind regards, Jon [ogo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 73 jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>

2 1

IGO Protections - Abu Dhabi
by Jonathan.PASSARO＠oecd.org Sept. 27, 2017

Sept. 27, 2017

Dear Bruce, As the next ICANN meeting approaches, the time has come to see if I can obtain a budget to travel to Abu Dhabi. In this context, I would be grateful if you could let me know if there are any meetings of the discussion group on IGO protections planned during the next meeting. I note that the PDP working group on curative rights protection mechanisms has not yet released its final report; perhaps someone can shed light on the anticipated release date? Kind regards, Jon [logo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 73 jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>

1 0

Meetings in Johannesburg relating to IGO Protection
by Bruce Tonkin June 19, 2017

June 19, 2017

Hello All, Please note that I am now using a different email address. I have had a few questions about whether there will be any further facilitated discussion on IGO protections in Johannesburg. (1) Regarding the watch list suggestion from the facilitated discussion in Copenhagen. I am aware that ICANN staff have done some further analysis of the options to provide such a service and will brief the Board. I expect the Board will consider the information, and hopefully we will hear whether they plan to proceed with some form of service. (2) The GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process Working Group<https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect…> will be holding a 90 min public session at the Johannesburg meeting at 10:30am on Tuesday 27 June 2017. Details are available at: https://schedule.icann.org/event/B49J/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect… I plan to attend this session to learn more about how the policy work has evolved since the public comment process on their initial report. I recommend all members of this discussion list that will be in Johannesburg come along as well. I don't believe there is value in having a further facilitated dialogue until we all know how the work of the working group has progressed since Copenhagen. I will be happy to chat to anyone after that session, and open to any suggestions on how I can help in any way. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

3 2

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] IGO Acronyms / 6ter
by James M. Bladel June 6, 2017

June 6, 2017

Thanks Jonathan – Could someone clarify, then, for this non-Lawyer - If I tried to apply for a trademark on “WHO” in parts of Canada, or New York , this would be rejected? If so, does it matter which industry or context I intend to use the mark (medical / health services, vs. another industry, say diesel engine repair)? I’m curious because there are several real-world examples of non-health uses for this string. Thank you— J. From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org" <Jonathan.PASSARO(a)oecd.org> Date: Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 7:33 To: "brucemelbit(a)gmail.com" <brucemelbit(a)gmail.com> Cc: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] IGO Acronyms / 6ter Dear Bruce, I had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues at other IGOs on the issue of national laws that protect IGO acronyms. As a basic point, we remain perplexed by the distinction being raised between laws which protect IGOs by disallowing the registration of their acronyms as trademarks and laws which protect IGO acronyms through other means. In any event, there are many examples of laws which protect IGO acronyms through means other than refusal of registration. We have already seen the examples of Switzerland and Australia. Section 9(1) of Canada’s Trade-marks Act <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3> is another interesting example because it protects both Red Cross and IGO identifiers, therefore providing a strong indication that IGO and Red Cross identifiers should receive similar treatment in the DNS. Some laws go even further; my colleagues at the UN pointed out a New York State law<http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-business-law/gbs-sect-141.html> that classifies as a misdemeanour any unauthorised use of the United Nations name or symbol. This of course in addition to the protections already afforded to IGOs by US federal law under the Lanham Act. I trust that this is enough to satisfy the enquiry. In any event, I look forward to hearing about next steps. Kind regards, Jon [ogo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>

3 2

IGO Acronyms / 6ter
by Jonathan.PASSARO＠oecd.org June 1, 2017

June 1, 2017

Dear Bruce, I had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues at other IGOs on the issue of national laws that protect IGO acronyms. As a basic point, we remain perplexed by the distinction being raised between laws which protect IGOs by disallowing the registration of their acronyms as trademarks and laws which protect IGO acronyms through other means. In any event, there are many examples of laws which protect IGO acronyms through means other than refusal of registration. We have already seen the examples of Switzerland and Australia. Section 9(1) of Canada's Trade-marks Act <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3> is another interesting example because it protects both Red Cross and IGO identifiers, therefore providing a strong indication that IGO and Red Cross identifiers should receive similar treatment in the DNS. Some laws go even further; my colleagues at the UN pointed out a New York State law<http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-business-law/gbs-sect-141.html> that classifies as a misdemeanour any unauthorised use of the United Nations name or symbol. This of course in addition to the protections already afforded to IGOs by US federal law under the Lanham Act. I trust that this is enough to satisfy the enquiry. In any event, I look forward to hearing about next steps. Kind regards, Jon [logo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>

1 0

Announcement: Pre-ICANN59 Policy Update Webinar Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-05-22-en Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. The ICANN Policy Development Support Team will host a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 15 June 2017 at 10:00 and 19:00 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in preparation for the upcoming ICANN59 Policy Forum in Johannesburg, South Africa. The purpose of the webinar is to summarize policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and to brief the community on the Empowered Community consultation and cross-community sessions taking place in Johannesburg. Briefings on the Empowered Community Consultation and Cross-Community Sessions: * Special session on the Proposed Fundamental Bylaws Amendments * Next-Generation Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Registration Directory Services (RDS) policy requirements * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * Geographic names * Operational side of ICANN's Operating Plan and Budget * Who sets ICANN's priorities? Updates on Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees: * Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and regional Internet registries (RIR) policy development * Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) * Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Community * Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) * Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) * Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs in English for 90 minutes. The webinar will be conducted via Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, participants may submit questions using the chat function in Adobe Connect. Recordings of the webinars will be made available <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/presentations-2012-08-27-en> here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> policyinfo(a)icann.org. Please RSVP via <https://goo.gl/forms/LTVbnZ8zXIBp5fFm1> this form by 13 June 2017. You will receive remote participation details the week of 12 June 2017. Ozan Sahin Community Engagement Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.999.6218 Mobile: +90.533.641.0007 Email: ozan.sahin(a)icann.org <mailto:ozan.sahin@icann.org> Skype: ozan.sahin.icann www.icann.org

1 0

Example of laws on international orgs
by Bruce Tonkin May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Hello All, Just been informed that Australia does have a law related to International Organizations: So this is an example of applicable local law: International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01053 " Except with the consent in writing of the Minister, a person (including a body corporate) shall not: (a) use the name or an abbreviation of the name of an international organisation to which this Act applies in connexion with a trade, business, profession, calling or occupation;" There is a list of organizations to which the act applies. Looks like strong protection at least in Australia. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

7 11

GNSO Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names
by Bruce Tonkin May 8, 2017

May 8, 2017

Hello All, Just a note to let you know that the GNSO Council has passed a motion to initiate the Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names . See below. Regards, Bruce Tonkin From: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201705 Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf , with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-… ); WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf ); WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO's PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Crystal", and "Red Lion & Sun" (referred to as "Scope 1 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2… ); WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of the then-189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as "Scope 2 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the "Scope 2 Identifiers" of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement's identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC's rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun", and "Red Crystal" under international treaty law and under multiple national laws; (3) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2… ); WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf ), to consider amending the GNSO's approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council's consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice: RESOLVED, 1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: (a) The full names of the now-190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level; (b) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and (c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC's public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the recommendations of the reconvened PDP Working Group, and its proposed amendment(s) to Recommendation 5, if any, for public comment for a period of 30 days following the conclusion of the PDP WG. 3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion. Vote results http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-07may17-en.p…

1 0

External legal advice on 6ter
by Jonathan.PASSARO＠oecd.org May 6, 2017

May 6, 2017

Dear Bruce, My apologies for the delay since my last email, as it took me a few days to consult with the other members of the "core group" of IGOs (UN, UPU, WHO, WIPO). First, allow me to take the opportunity to correct a point in your last email, sent on 30 April at 02:14 CEST. You stated that "Where IGOs have a trademark, they can take advantage of the existing UDRP." As we have discussed at length, the mutual jurisdiction provision of the UDRP in fact prevents IGOs from using the UDRP. For more in-depth explanations regarding why the mutual jurisdiction provision is incompatible with the immunities we enjoy as intergovernmental organisations, I invite you to consult the comments numerous IGOs provided on this point in the context of the ongoing PDP (including e.g. OECD<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/…>, UN<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/…>, World Bank<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/…>). Second, regarding the consultation of a legal expert, my IGO colleagues share the OECD's concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has already been an extensive and resource-intensive process. In addition, our past experiences within ICANN make us deeply concerned that such an exercise risks being manipulated against IGOs' interests, from the formulation of the research question, the selection of the expert and the choice of jurisdictions to the potential cherry-picking of language from the expert's conclusions once her report is released. We are grateful that you are trying to start a new, less contentious chapter in this saga but hope that you understand why we are reticent to embark down this path. In that regard, if you do decide to proceed, we would naturally expect that the IGOs would be involved in (1) the formulation of the research question(s); (2) the selection of the expert (3) the terms of reference guiding the expert's work; and (4) the choice of jurisdictions (please note already that a survey of five jurisdictions out of the 177 States Parties to the Paris Convention seems unlikely to give any kind of accurate idea about the scope of mechanisms States use to protect IGO acronyms). Kind regards, Jon [logo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 73

4 8

External Legal advice on applicable local law for the protection of the legal rights of IGOs
by Bruce Tonkin April 30, 2017

April 30, 2017

Hello All, During the discussion in Copenhagen it was agreed that there was a public interest goal in protecting the Names and abbreviations of International InterGovernmental Organizations (IGOs). An example of such a protection in an international treaty is in Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property protects the names and abbreviations of International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs) against unauthorized registration and use as trademarks. Dispute mechanisms developed by the GNSO for gTLDs need to conform with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law. The UDRP was built on trademark law for example. As IGOs often use Article 6ter to prevent the registration as trademarks of an IGO name or abbreviation they cannot then use trademark law to take legal action against a mis-use of a trademark. During the discussions in Copenhagen it was not clear what applicable local laws can be used by IGOs, or Governments on their behalf, to tackle infringements in the offline world - e.g. printed publications or signs that mis-use the names and abbreviations of International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs). I propose asking the ICANN organization, on behalf of this discussion group, to get some expert external legal advice on the following general question: " Separately from any trademark rights, what substantive legal rights (if any) do International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs) have in their acronyms under specific national laws and/or international law? For instance, are there consumer protection statutes or other causes of action that an IGO can rely on to assert specific legal rights in its acronym?" In getting this legal advice, I would propose that: - any legal opinion should be obtained from a third party, preferably a person or entity that can be regarded by the GNSO Council, the GAC, and the affected parties (ie IGOs) as neutral. - the question and scope of such an enquiry should be agreed by this group and be as specific as possible to ensure it can be provided in a timely fashion and at reasonable cost - e.g. we might want to select a small subset (e.g. 5) of countries for a survey that are representative of the approach in various regions of the world - given that legal advice would be needed from law firms in each country. This advice would then help inform the work of the GNSO Working Group on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy. Please let me know if the group would like to proceed down this path, and if so how should the question be formulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 15