+1 Excellent Work!!! And most useful for our analysis. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo Novoa -----Mensaje original----- De: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Paul Keating Enviado el: viernes, 28 de abril de 2017 03:01 a.m. Para: George Kirikos CC: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Issues raised by Small discussion group concerning IGO and Red Cross identifiers George Well done. I am amazed at your dedication although I often honestly wonder where you get the time. Thank you for your comments tinier contributions. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Apr 28, 2017, at 3:10 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
During today's call, reference was made to the Small discussion group concerning IGO and Red Cross identifiers, whose mailing list archives can be visited via:
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/
Our own Phil Corwin is on that mailing list, and doing an excellent job in my opinion of representing our work to date.
I've been going through the archives, and have some comments/thoughts below:
1. in the post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-March/000116.html the OECD rep made bold and overbroad assertions about the nature of IGO protections in national legislation, stating:
"Canada's legislation in this regard extends beyond simple refusal to register a conflicting trademark: §9(1) of the Trade-marks Act states that "No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark..."
That's a highly misleading statement/snippet, perhaps assuming that no one would actually look up the full text of the Canadian legislation. I did. It's at:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/t-13/page-2.html#h-3
and it makes clear via explicit language that there are excepted uses:
9(2) Excepted uses
(2) Nothing in this section prevents the adoption, use or registration as a trade-mark or otherwise, in connection with a business, of any mark ..... (ii) an armorial bearing, flag, emblem or abbreviation mentioned in paragraph (1)(i.3), *****unless the use of the mark is likely to mislead the public as to a connection between the user and the organization.*****
(emphasis added)
And section 9(1)(i.3) was (on the same page) referencing IGOs and Article 6ter:
"(i.3) any armorial bearing, flag or other emblem, or the name or any abbreviation of the name, of an international intergovernmental organization, if the armorial bearing, flag, emblem, name or abbreviation is on a list communicated under article 6ter of the Convention or pursuant to the obligations under the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set out in Annex 1C to the WTO Agreement stemming from that article, and the Registrar gives public notice of the communication;"
So, it's clear that that the "Excepted uses" in Canada law recognizes coexistence explicitly, mirroring the language of Article 6ter section 1(c) which made the recognition of coexistence via exceptions for:
"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."
and which is reflected in our own group's recommendations (which the IGOs did not like, as they seem to ignore section 1(c) of Article 6ter repeatedly).
So, I hope this is brought to the attention of the "Small discussion group", to ensure that they're not making incorrect assessments of the nature of the IGO protections based on misleading statements from the IGOs.
2. In the post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000132.html
where, as we discussed today during the call, Bruce Tonkin proposed asking for external legal advice regard relevant national laws in relation to IGO protection, "before being able to design a new dispute resolution process." I am confident that at least in Canada and the USA, that no such national laws limit the due process rights of those accused of misusing the IGO marks --- the accused would still "get to have their day in court."
In the past, we discussed the possibility of allowing representatives of national authorities to bring the UDRP/URS actions (instead of the IGOs themselves), as a way forward. Perhaps this should be revisited, to handle the immunity issue once and for all. National authorities would obviously face no question of immunity before their own courts (except perhaps those in totalitarian regimes where due process doesn't exist). If a Canadian entity is accused of misuse of an IGO by a Canadian national authority in a UDRP/URS, a decision could be appealed by either side to the relevant Canadian courts, leaving the IGO out of the process and shielded from the immunity issue.
Bruce Tonkin might be sympathetic to that possibility, when he mentioned in a later post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000147.html
"a Government on their behalf"
can act to protect IGOs via the laws of their jurisdictions. He also wrote:
" I am assuming that it is in the "public interest" for an IGO or Government to take some action to stop the mis-use - just trying to be clear "how" that would be done."
If, in the public interest, we explicitly allow governments or national authorities to bring the UDRP/URS, as "agents" of the IGO, this would appear to solve many issues. We already issued policy guidance about "assignees, licensees and agents", so perhaps we could be more explicit in our report about permitting national authorities to be the agents of the IGOs, as part of our "workaround"?? [Of course, the national authorities don't have to use the UDRP/URS at all, they could just go directly to their courts using existing judicial mechanisms.]
Any ICANN-developed process *needs* to ensure that full due process for domain name registrants (including via access to the courts) is not eliminated, otherwise ICANN would be making up new law, beyond what exists in national laws.
3. The rep from WIPO stated at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000134.html
"Standing for IGOs which need not be expressly grounded in trademark law as such, as IGOs are created by governments under international law and are in an objectively different category of rights holders."
which is an odd statement, given that the OECD rep previously pointed explicitly at Canada's Trademark Act! While other nation's laws differ, we should not be creating new DRPs for every possible event of fraud or misuse of the DNS --- that's what the national courts are there for.
When Barclays plead guilty of manipulating FX rates:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20150520_should_barclays_lose_the_barcla ys_top_level_domain/
the national authorities didn't seek "relief" for that disgusting and illegal behaviour via the UDRP or some other DRP created by ICANN, or argue that ICANN should create a new DRP for FX manipulation. There has been talk about creating a "Copyright" version of the UDRP, for example, or other DRPs. ICANN should not be wasting limited volunteer resources and time via mission creep, trying to replace or supercede the national laws of 200+ members. At least with the UDRP/URS, there was a strong "lowest common denominator" amongst those national trademark laws, which are reflected in the policies, and the policies directly permit court action at any time, either before, during or after a panel decision. It's clear that the IGOs want to eliminate those due process protections of the courts, by compelling arbitration, by revisiting issues that have been looked at for nearly 20 years (and repeatedly rejected by the community).
4. As I've noted in the past (and noted in my comments on our draft report)
https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20j an17/msg00004.html
IGOs seem to misunderstand their choices. As I wrote:
"Note that the above roadmap is in addition to all the other legal and non-legal options that an IGO has, including:
- sending cease and desist letters - filing WHOIS accuracy complaints (most criminals use false WHOIS) - contacting registrars when there is abusive/illegal conduct - contacting payment processors (Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, etc.) in the event of financial fraud - contacting webhosting companies to take down illegal content - pursuing court action as a first option - asking law enforcement to pursue criminal behaviour"
The entire work of that "small discussion group" seems to want to reinvent the wheel, and replace all existing law in 200+ countries with poorly thought out ICANN mechanisms that eliminate due process for registrants.
5. One of the ICANN board members stated at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000139.html that
"I agree, excellent idea, but selection of the expert will be key. The GNSO had asked for a legal opinion before, but it was a US expert whose conception of international law was not necessarily shared by the Europeans!"
Not only is this an unfair assessment of Professor Swaine's work, it seems to suggest that IGOs can "massage" the process and predetermine the outcome through selection of an "expert" who will parrot their incorrect views. This is alarming.
While he seemed to backtrack a bit in a followup post at:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-April/000142.html
it still seems that there are issues of gaming the outcome via selection of a "sympathetic expert". We saw that in the new gTLD process itself, when ICANN commissioned dubious external "economic reports" by the Compass Group in order to support a predetermined outcome desired by the ICANN Board.
In conclusion, I think this demonstrates why having a "parallel" group is a bad idea, because it's trying to redo our comprehensive work, and has fewer eyes on it compared to this formal PDP. It makes little sense to me that IGOs have ample time to participate in that mailing list, yet had no time to participate in our PDP as members. I think that highlights the "forum shopping" argument, that IGOs are looking for sympathetic forums (of which binding arbitration is an example) to gain advantages of an uneven playing field.
Other members of this PDP working group might want to take some time to review those mailing list archives (took me a couple of hours, although I didn't review any audio or transcripts or their Wiki), to look for other factual errors and issues that might not have been caught by that group.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.