Hi folks, Continuing the analysis of the "Small Discussion group", there's a post by Bruce Tonkin at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/000166.html which is misleading that mailing list as to the claimed strength of the protection for IGOs. If you actually read the text of the legislation (not just the snippet he quoted), it goes on to say: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01053 "(3) A person shall not be convicted of an offence against this section in respect of the use of an abbreviation of the name of an international organisation to which this Act applies if the use occurred in such circumstances or in relation to such matters as to be unlikely to be taken to imply any connexion with the organisation, unless the prosecution proves that the use was intended to imply such a connexion." which reflects the limitations in Article 6ter 1(c). http://www.wipo.int/article6ter/en/legal_texts/article_6ter.html "The countries of the Union shall not be required to apply the said provisions when the use or registration referred to in subparagraph (a), above, is not of such a nature as to suggest to the public that a connection exists between the organization concerned and the armorial bearings, flags, emblems, abbreviations, and names, or if such use or registration is probably not of such a nature as to mislead the public as to the existence of a connection between the user and the organization." The Australian legislation then goes on to say: (6) Proceedings under this section shall not be instituted without the consent in writing of the Attorney‑General. so it's clear that the enforcement depends on the *government.* For Tonkin to claim that this is "strong protection" in Australia is not correct. It's the exact same protection as provided under Article 6ter. It's essentially Australia's actual implementation of Article 6ter, to fulfill their treaty obligations. It doesn't exceed those obligations, it mirrors them exactly. This illustrates why such closed groups, that have limited scrutiny, are problematic, as they make false assumptions, and then fail to grasp that those assumptions are false until they've wasted enormous resources (and then they are unwilling to admit that their assumptions are false, because they've invested so much time on them!). You'll note that Tonkin's post generated several followups: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/date.html none of which have yet corrected the misleading assertion. Tonkin is essentially repeating the false claim made by the OECD rep which referenced Canada's legislation, which I already analyzed at point #1 of: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-April/000712.html which failed to note the "excepted uses". I hope that this will be brought to the attention of that small group, lest they continue to be misinformed through material omissions. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/