Gnso-igo-ingo
Threads by month
- ----- 2026 -----
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2025 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2024 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
August 2017
- 12 participants
- 6 discussions
FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points raised during the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group on Red Cross protections
by Mary Wong Sept. 3, 2017
by Mary Wong Sept. 3, 2017
Sept. 3, 2017
Dear all,
Following from the call last Thursday (17 August), staff has attempted to put together a summary of the major questions and points (including the relevant text of the Geneva Conventions cited) that were raised on the call. The summary is attached. If you wish to provide comments or raise further questions, please do so directly in the identical Google Doc version here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VftetlaXmEW1HqNVv3EYQi4x2VtKX6eja0VBizM….
Please note that the summary was intentionally kept as brief as possible, so it does not go into detail about the international law basis. This is further explored in the submissions that were provided by the Red Cross representatives, and in Annex A of the Briefing Document prepared for the facilitated discussions that took place at ICANN58 in March this year (please refer to the wiki page for this Working Group here for the links: https://community.icann.org/x/-g8hB)
We hope the summary is helpful to your further deliberations.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org>
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 12:06
To: "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDS PDP WG on Red Cross Names on 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC
Dear all,
Please find the attendance attached, and the mp3, Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat below for the reconvened IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Red Cross Names held on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC.
Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-17aug17-en.mp3< http:/audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-17aug17-en.mp3%0d>
AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p59acngik1a/<https://participate.icann.org/p59acngik1a/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…>
Mailing list archive: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/
Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-g8hB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
———————————————
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 August 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Reconvened IGO INGO PDP Working Group call on Red Cross Names on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC.
Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…
Julie Bisland:looking for the beeping
Heather Forrest:Beeping noise?
Julie Bisland:Welcome Ken Stubbs :)
Julie Bisland:Welcome Giacomo Mazzone
ken stubbs:who is speaking ?
Heather Forrest:It's not clear to me how protection of "Red Cross", etc and symbols covers the national society names
ken stubbs:i have a question after ther speakers comments are over.
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:Noted, Ken!
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks to Stephane for the explanations!
Greg Shatan:I second Heather's question.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Apart from change in the law, there is also the possibility that the PDP WG was not fully aware of the legal basis - as Thomas is hinting, I feel
Heather Forrest:So back to my earlier chat comment - it's not clear to me how the national society names fit here in the Geneva Convention
Greg Shatan:We are still not "fully aware" of the legal basis, if any, for this request.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel that Stephane has explained it quite well...
Greg Shatan:no, sorry, he talked around the specific issue, hence the question.
Chuck Gomes:My understanding is that staff was going to provide the WG with the legal basis for the national society names. Is that correct? If not, I think that would be a good action item before our next meeting.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):As Stephane apparently is not on the adobe maybe the question could be read aloud and/or circulated in writing
Mary Wong:@Chuck, by circulating the Red Cross' position paper and the Briefing Document that was used in Copenhagen (which was prepared by staff and Bruce Tonkin), this group can fully discusss that question. We didn't feel it's our place (as staff) to draw legal conclusions specifically.
Chuck Gomes:@ Mary: You don't need to draw legal conclusions but you could summarize the legal basis for protection of the national names.
ken stubbs:your talking over each other
Mary Wong:@Chuck, understood - but note that the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols do not specifically mention the National Society names, or what specific names associaed with the Red Cross are intended by use of the terms "emblem" and "designations" therein. Hence, we felt it was for the WG - with the assistance of the RC reps - to clarify what, exactly, is the scope of the law as a result (especially in the DNS).
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: could you circulate the conclusions of the facilitated dialogue of Copenhagen as well as the relevant Board Resolution? thanks
Mary Wong:@Jorge, of course - hang on just a moment.
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross", or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trademarks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times.Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:That is the part of the Geneva Convention that in my view is relevant for this.
giacomo mazzone:Jorge you mean this: (2) Review of briefing paper from Copenhagen facilitated discussion (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-July/000046.html)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I meant the conclusions drwan by Bruce Tonkin from the facilitated discussion
Heather Forrest:+1 Greg - it seems to me that the lack of clarity on legal basis is exactly why we're here now (to answer Ken's question that started this discussion)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the Board Resolution is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:What I pasted here is Article 53
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Both the Board Resolution and the conclusions of the facilitated discussion highlighted both the legal basis and the public policy considerations
Greg Shatan:We don't need an explicit reference to domain names to find a legal basis.
Greg Shatan:I thought we were looking at "rights protections." If we are not talking about legal rights, what kind of rights are we talking about?
Alan Greenberg:We (ICANN and the GNSO) have sufficuent major issues to look at that we need to get this done quickly and move on.
Greg Shatan:Jorge, can you provide more specific citations, please.
Greg Shatan:Alan, I agree with the concern regarding bandwidth. You and I are in many of the same groups. But that doesn't support any particular conclusion.
Greg Shatan:One could conclude that it takes many pages of verbiage, because there is no clear and succinct statement that can be made to show a basis for the claimed right for which protections are being requested.
Mary Wong:@Jorge, the links to the Board resolution (which you also posted, thanks) and the GNSO Council resolution have been pasted in the Notes pod. Bruce's high level summary was in an email to the IGO-RC discussion group, dated 13 March: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-March/000108.html
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Greg: I hope Mary may find the conclusion/summary of the facilitated dialogue. As for the Board Resolution this part is relevant: "(3) In considering the Board's request, the Council is requested to duly take into account these factors and the 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."
Heather Forrest:+1 Chuck - basis in law had significant impacts on the recommendations of the Reserved Names WG in 2007
Greg Shatan:Jorge, what "factors" is the quoted language referring to? The quoted language provides no support for any particular conclusions.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: I feel you found the summary about IGOs - not the one on ICRC
Mary Wong:@Chuck, @Thomas, I've pasted the factors that the discussion group, Board and Council considered in the Notes pod.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):"factors" refers I guess to the preceding parts of the Resolution, where legal basis and GAC Advice etc. are mentioned
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry no sound
Greg Shatan:Then I guess that is what we should be looking at, to see what they've said about legal basis.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):audio problems, sorry!
Julie Bisland:would you like our operator to dial out to you?
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I'm ready I think
Julie Bisland:yes, I see you have your speaker on now. Excellent!
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the Board Resolution mentions the following public policy arguments included in GAC Advice: "and the global public policy considerations in the protections of the identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations from forms of misuse in the domain name system, including from fraud and embezzlement in times of humanitarian crises."
Greg Shatan:Public policy is not a legal basis.
Mary Wong:@Jorge, my apologies (re the wrong message from Bruce). I cannot at the moment find a summary of the Red Cross discussion but will resume looking after this call.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: maybe the summary took the form of the proposed Board language?
Greg Shatan:Where does the Geneva Convention mention the names of the national societies? (Not individually but as a class of "strings").
Mary Wong:@Greg, I believe there is mention in Article 44.
Chuck Gomes:Am I the only one that would like us to use a systematic approach to deliberate on the questions we are tasked with answering? We seem to continue to talk about all questions together, which in my opinion makes it difficult to make progress. Why not focus on one charter question at a time, discuss whether the three Council criteria are satisfied and if not discuss whether there is a reasoable basis for making an exception?
Alan Greenberg:Red Cross fraud is a bad thing, but protecting the country names will d onothing to protect against such fraud. We cannot stop similar names from being registered and we cannot protect against words such as tsumani or flod. SO let's not confuse the rationale.
Greg Shatan:Chuck, I think that would be a very helpful and appropriate approach.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, @Greg, our (staff) assumption was that the group is already on the question of "what is the reasonable basis" (e.g. law and/or public policy), as the Council's (and Board's) list of factors/criteria have already defined the scope for the group.
Chuck Gomes:On which charter question Mary?
Greg Shatan:I'm not asking for perfection. Just a reasonable and objective legal basis.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, on the specific request to possibly amend the PDP recommendation concerning the names of the Red Cross National Societies and the two International Movement names., plus a limited, defined set of variants.
Chuck Gomes:What charter question are we discussing now?
Greg Shatan:Mary, where in Article 44? I'm looking at Art 44 and not seeing it.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, all - the charter (scope) for this group was outlined in the Council resolution i.e. amend the original PDP recomemndation regarding the national society names, the two international movement names, and the agreed limited variant list.
Greg Shatan:Art 44 is entitled "Combatants and prisoners of war."
giacomo mazzone:I agree with what Jorge just said. it's a matter of public policy mainly (legal aspects are important but are a plus). aim of the group is to identify what's the best way to ensure this protection with the minimum of hurdles.
Mary Wong:@Greg, it is Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention 1949, I believe.
Mary Wong:https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=o…
Jennifer Breckenridge:GC Convention 1- ARTICLE 44 With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross", or "Geneva Cross" may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. The same shall apply to the emblems mentioned in Article 38, second paragraph [ Link ] , in respect of the countries which use them. The National Red Cross Societies and other Societies designated in Article 26 [ Link ] shall have the right to use the distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Convention only within the framework of the present paragraph. Furthermore, National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies may, in time of peace, in accordance with their national legislation, make use of the name and emblem of the Red Cros
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the document really is clear enough, when the purpose is to understand
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):question tp Greg: have you read the 44-pager?
Chuck Gomes:The language is not at all clear to me.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Chuck: of course, it is legal language
Jennifer Breckenridge:continued.....for their other activities which are in conformity with the principles laid down by the International Red Cross Conferences. When those activities are carried out in time of war, the conditions for the use of the emblem shall be such that it cannot be considered as conferring the protection of the Convention; the emblem shall be comparatively small in size and may not be placed on armlets or on the roofs of buildings.The international Red Cross organizations and their duly authorized personnel shall be permitted to make use, at all times, of the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground.As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the burden is on who is making questions and to refer to the 44-doc
Mary Wong:All, will it help for staff to recirculate the provisions that Jennifer and Stephane cited/quoted, as well as Jennifer's statement on thsi call?
Greg Shatan:The burden of proof is always on those trying to prove something.
Chuck Gomes:Legal language can be clear and often is. This legal language is not. The explanations given may be valid but without them I never would have concluded that the national names need to be protected. All that seems clear is that they can use the emblems.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):well, they have in my view... with 44 pages...
Greg Shatan:Your view is not in doubt, Jorge.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):when you make such an effort, the minimum is to be specific in the follow-up questions
Greg Shatan:A for Effort, perhaps, but not an A for clarity.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I was a bit unsure about whether all had read it, as comments were being made to a completely unrelated provision of the Conventions...
Greg Shatan:Having heard what has been said here, one can now form some more specific questions.
Greg Shatan:Jorge, blame Google for pulling up the wrong Geneva Convention Art. 44.
Jennifer Breckenridge:sorry its long and keeps cutting off the end of the clause...
Mary Wong:@Jennifer, I put the link to the specific Article in the chat above. This entire chat will also be saved and circulatd to the list.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Greg: I'll agree on that ;P
Greg Shatan:If we can avoid 1300-1400 UTC we can avoid overlap with CCWG.
giacomo mazzone:who shall prepare the summary requested for point 2 ? it was not clear tome ...
Julie Bisland:I’ll send out an email invite shortly, for 7 September 2017 at 14 :00 UTC
Mary Wong:@Giacomo, staff will work with Thomas to follow up on the requests made on this call.
Heather Forrest:just noting that 1400 utc is 00:00 for parts of APAC
giacomo mazzone:thank Mary, could you circulate in advance to avoid that discussion endless will go on during the call
Mary Wong:@Giacomo, yes, we will circulate to the list.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Thomas, all and regards
6
17
Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDS PDP WG on Red Cross Names on 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland Aug. 17, 2017
by Julie Bisland Aug. 17, 2017
Aug. 17, 2017
Dear all,
Please find the attendance attached, and the mp3, Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat below for the reconvened IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Red Cross Names held on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC.
Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-17aug17-en.mp3< http:/audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-17aug17-en.mp3%0d>
AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p59acngik1a/<https://participate.icann.org/p59acngik1a/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=92ef84797cbc0a40…>
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
Mailing list archive: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/
Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/-g8hB
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
---------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 17 August 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Reconvened IGO INGO PDP Working Group call on Red Cross Names on Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 13:00 UTC.
Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…
Julie Bisland:looking for the beeping
Heather Forrest:Beeping noise?
Julie Bisland:Welcome Ken Stubbs :)
Julie Bisland:Welcome Giacomo Mazzone
ken stubbs:who is speaking ?
Heather Forrest:It's not clear to me how protection of "Red Cross", etc and symbols covers the national society names
ken stubbs:i have a question after ther speakers comments are over.
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:Noted, Ken!
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks to Stephane for the explanations!
Greg Shatan:I second Heather's question.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Apart from change in the law, there is also the possibility that the PDP WG was not fully aware of the legal basis - as Thomas is hinting, I feel
Heather Forrest:So back to my earlier chat comment - it's not clear to me how the national society names fit here in the Geneva Convention
Greg Shatan:We are still not "fully aware" of the legal basis, if any, for this request.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel that Stephane has explained it quite well...
Greg Shatan:no, sorry, he talked around the specific issue, hence the question.
Chuck Gomes:My understanding is that staff was going to provide the WG with the legal basis for the national society names. Is that correct? If not, I think that would be a good action item before our next meeting.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):As Stephane apparently is not on the adobe maybe the question could be read aloud and/or circulated in writing
Mary Wong:@Chuck, by circulating the Red Cross' position paper and the Briefing Document that was used in Copenhagen (which was prepared by staff and Bruce Tonkin), this group can fully discusss that question. We didn't feel it's our place (as staff) to draw legal conclusions specifically.
Chuck Gomes:@ Mary: You don't need to draw legal conclusions but you could summarize the legal basis for protection of the national names.
ken stubbs:your talking over each other
Mary Wong:@Chuck, understood - but note that the Geneva Conventions and the Protocols do not specifically mention the National Society names, or what specific names associaed with the Red Cross are intended by use of the terms "emblem" and "designations" therein. Hence, we felt it was for the WG - with the assistance of the RC reps - to clarify what, exactly, is the scope of the law as a result (especially in the DNS).
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: could you circulate the conclusions of the facilitated dialogue of Copenhagen as well as the relevant Board Resolution? thanks
Mary Wong:@Jorge, of course - hang on just a moment.
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:The use by individuals, societies, firms or companies either public or private, other than those entitled thereto under the present Convention, of the emblem or the designation "Red Cross" or "Geneva Cross", or any sign or designation constituting an imitation thereof, whatever the object of such use, and irrespective of the date of its adoption, shall be prohibited at all times.By reason of the tribute paid to Switzerland by the adoption of the reversed Federal colours, and of the confusion which may arise between the arms of Switzerland and the distinctive emblem of the Convention, the use by private individuals, societies or firms, of the arms of the Swiss Confederation, or of marks constituting an imitation thereof, whether as trademarks or commercial marks, or as parts of such marks, or for a purpose contrary to commercial honesty, or in circumstances capable of wounding Swiss national sentiment, shall be prohibited at all times.Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:That is the part of the Geneva Convention that in my view is relevant for this.
giacomo mazzone:Jorge you mean this: (2) Review of briefing paper from Copenhagen facilitated discussion (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-July/000046.html)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I meant the conclusions drwan by Bruce Tonkin from the facilitated discussion
Heather Forrest:+1 Greg - it seems to me that the lack of clarity on legal basis is exactly why we're here now (to answer Ken's question that started this discussion)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the Board Resolution is here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…
Thomas Rickert, WG Chair:What I pasted here is Article 53
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Both the Board Resolution and the conclusions of the facilitated discussion highlighted both the legal basis and the public policy considerations
Greg Shatan:We don't need an explicit reference to domain names to find a legal basis.
Greg Shatan:I thought we were looking at "rights protections." If we are not talking about legal rights, what kind of rights are we talking about?
Alan Greenberg:We (ICANN and the GNSO) have sufficuent major issues to look at that we need to get this done quickly and move on.
Greg Shatan:Jorge, can you provide more specific citations, please.
Greg Shatan:Alan, I agree with the concern regarding bandwidth. You and I are in many of the same groups. But that doesn't support any particular conclusion.
Greg Shatan:One could conclude that it takes many pages of verbiage, because there is no clear and succinct statement that can be made to show a basis for the claimed right for which protections are being requested.
Mary Wong:@Jorge, the links to the Board resolution (which you also posted, thanks) and the GNSO Council resolution have been pasted in the Notes pod. Bruce's high level summary was in an email to the IGO-RC discussion group, dated 13 March: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-March/000108.html
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Greg: I hope Mary may find the conclusion/summary of the facilitated dialogue. As for the Board Resolution this part is relevant: "(3) In considering the Board's request, the Council is requested to duly take into account these factors and the 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."
Heather Forrest:+1 Chuck - basis in law had significant impacts on the recommendations of the Reserved Names WG in 2007
Greg Shatan:Jorge, what "factors" is the quoted language referring to? The quoted language provides no support for any particular conclusions.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: I feel you found the summary about IGOs - not the one on ICRC
Mary Wong:@Chuck, @Thomas, I've pasted the factors that the discussion group, Board and Council considered in the Notes pod.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):"factors" refers I guess to the preceding parts of the Resolution, where legal basis and GAC Advice etc. are mentioned
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):sorry no sound
Greg Shatan:Then I guess that is what we should be looking at, to see what they've said about legal basis.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):audio problems, sorry!
Julie Bisland:would you like our operator to dial out to you?
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I'm ready I think
Julie Bisland:yes, I see you have your speaker on now. Excellent!
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):the Board Resolution mentions the following public policy arguments included in GAC Advice: "and the global public policy considerations in the protections of the identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations from forms of misuse in the domain name system, including from fraud and embezzlement in times of humanitarian crises."
Greg Shatan:Public policy is not a legal basis.
Mary Wong:@Jorge, my apologies (re the wrong message from Bruce). I cannot at the moment find a summary of the Red Cross discussion but will resume looking after this call.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Mary: maybe the summary took the form of the proposed Board language?
Greg Shatan:Where does the Geneva Convention mention the names of the national societies? (Not individually but as a class of "strings").
Mary Wong:@Greg, I believe there is mention in Article 44.
Chuck Gomes:Am I the only one that would like us to use a systematic approach to deliberate on the questions we are tasked with answering? We seem to continue to talk about all questions together, which in my opinion makes it difficult to make progress. Why not focus on one charter question at a time, discuss whether the three Council criteria are satisfied and if not discuss whether there is a reasoable basis for making an exception?
Alan Greenberg:Red Cross fraud is a bad thing, but protecting the country names will d onothing to protect against such fraud. We cannot stop similar names from being registered and we cannot protect against words such as tsumani or flod. SO let's not confuse the rationale.
Greg Shatan:Chuck, I think that would be a very helpful and appropriate approach.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, @Greg, our (staff) assumption was that the group is already on the question of "what is the reasonable basis" (e.g. law and/or public policy), as the Council's (and Board's) list of factors/criteria have already defined the scope for the group.
Chuck Gomes:On which charter question Mary?
Greg Shatan:I'm not asking for perfection. Just a reasonable and objective legal basis.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, on the specific request to possibly amend the PDP recommendation concerning the names of the Red Cross National Societies and the two International Movement names., plus a limited, defined set of variants.
Chuck Gomes:What charter question are we discussing now?
Greg Shatan:Mary, where in Article 44? I'm looking at Art 44 and not seeing it.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, all - the charter (scope) for this group was outlined in the Council resolution i.e. amend the original PDP recomemndation regarding the national society names, the two international movement names, and the agreed limited variant list.
Greg Shatan:Art 44 is entitled "Combatants and prisoners of war."
giacomo mazzone:I agree with what Jorge just said. it's a matter of public policy mainly (legal aspects are important but are a plus). aim of the group is to identify what's the best way to ensure this protection with the minimum of hurdles.
Mary Wong:@Greg, it is Article 44 of the First Geneva Convention 1949, I believe.
Mary Wong:https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=o…
Jennifer Breckenridge:GC Convention 1- ARTICLE 44 With the exception of the cases mentioned in the following paragraphs of the present Article, the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground and the words "Red Cross", or "Geneva Cross" may not be employed, either in time of peace or in time of war, except to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material protected by the present Convention and other Conventions dealing with similar matters. The same shall apply to the emblems mentioned in Article 38, second paragraph [ Link ] , in respect of the countries which use them. The National Red Cross Societies and other Societies designated in Article 26 [ Link ] shall have the right to use the distinctive emblem conferring the protection of the Convention only within the framework of the present paragraph. Furthermore, National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies may, in time of peace, in accordance with their national legislation, make use of the name and emblem of the Red Cros
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the document really is clear enough, when the purpose is to understand
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):question tp Greg: have you read the 44-pager?
Chuck Gomes:The language is not at all clear to me.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Chuck: of course, it is legal language
Jennifer Breckenridge:continued.....for their other activities which are in conformity with the principles laid down by the International Red Cross Conferences. When those activities are carried out in time of war, the conditions for the use of the emblem shall be such that it cannot be considered as conferring the protection of the Convention; the emblem shall be comparatively small in size and may not be placed on armlets or on the roofs of buildings.The international Red Cross organizations and their duly authorized personnel shall be permitted to make use, at all times, of the emblem of the Red Cross on a white ground.As an exceptional measure, in conformity with national legislation and with the express permission of one of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies, the emblem of the Convention may be employed in time of peace to identify vehicles used as ambulances and to mark the position of aid stations exclusively assigned to the purpose of giving free treatment to the wounded or sick.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the burden is on who is making questions and to refer to the 44-doc
Mary Wong:All, will it help for staff to recirculate the provisions that Jennifer and Stephane cited/quoted, as well as Jennifer's statement on thsi call?
Greg Shatan:The burden of proof is always on those trying to prove something.
Chuck Gomes:Legal language can be clear and often is. This legal language is not. The explanations given may be valid but without them I never would have concluded that the national names need to be protected. All that seems clear is that they can use the emblems.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):well, they have in my view... with 44 pages...
Greg Shatan:Your view is not in doubt, Jorge.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):when you make such an effort, the minimum is to be specific in the follow-up questions
Greg Shatan:A for Effort, perhaps, but not an A for clarity.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I was a bit unsure about whether all had read it, as comments were being made to a completely unrelated provision of the Conventions...
Greg Shatan:Having heard what has been said here, one can now form some more specific questions.
Greg Shatan:Jorge, blame Google for pulling up the wrong Geneva Convention Art. 44.
Jennifer Breckenridge:sorry its long and keeps cutting off the end of the clause...
Mary Wong:@Jennifer, I put the link to the specific Article in the chat above. This entire chat will also be saved and circulatd to the list.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Greg: I'll agree on that ;P
Greg Shatan:If we can avoid 1300-1400 UTC we can avoid overlap with CCWG.
giacomo mazzone:who shall prepare the summary requested for point 2 ? it was not clear tome ...
Julie Bisland:I'll send out an email invite shortly, for 7 September 2017 at 14 :00 UTC
Mary Wong:@Giacomo, staff will work with Thomas to follow up on the requests made on this call.
Heather Forrest:just noting that 1400 utc is 00:00 for parts of APAC
giacomo mazzone:thank Mary, could you circulate in advance to avoid that discussion endless will go on during the call
Mary Wong:@Giacomo, yes, we will circulate to the list.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Thomas, all and regards
1
0
FW: Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
by James M. Bladel Aug. 17, 2017
by James M. Bladel Aug. 17, 2017
Aug. 17, 2017
Team –
My intention was to send this reply to the entire group, not off-list.
Thanks—
J.
From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com>
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:26
To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Sorry, Greg. I mean they are "in scope," insofar as this WG can refer them to the existing PDP on curative rights. I think we are saying the same thing. Apologies for my being unclear.
On Aug 8, 2017 at 11:19, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
James,
I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that acronyms are in scope? Looking at the background for this reconvened WG, I came to the opposite conclusion (as stated in my prior email).
Thanks!
Greg
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM, jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Thanks, Chuck.
Well, acronyms are in scope, insomuch as we acknowledge that they are more suited for inclusion in the work on IGO/INGO Curative Rights (as Stephane points out).
Thanks—
J.
From: Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:19
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins(a)icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>>
Cc: "'gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
James,
In my opinion you summarized the issues of our work in a concise, clear and useful manner, understanding that acronyms are apparently out of scope for this WG. Thanks.
Chuck
From: jbladel(a)godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> [mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:31 AM
To: Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins(a)icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>>
Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Thanks to Chuck, Stephane and especially Charlotte for their valuable contributions in this thread.
If we go back to the Facilitated Discussions in Copenhagen, we landed on three factors for reconsidering protections for RC/RC strings in the DNS (note, these are also reflected in the GNSO Council resolution that re-activated this PDP). Roughly paraphrased, they were:
* That the protections were based upon / reflected in national and international law, and
* That the list of covered strings was finite, and was amended only via consistent & visible processes, and
* There were no other legitimate uses for the string.
Circling back to Charlotte’s message, her points (1) and (2) and (3) are meant to establish that the first two tests are being met. Similarly, points (3) and (5) help to define the list of covered strings as finite, and only occasionally modified via well-established processes (Marshall Islands). However, I believe that point (4) (ICRC and IFRC) fail the third test: requiring that there are no other legitimate uses for the strings.
This is always a problem with acronyms, as they often collide with unrelated terms, organizations, or industries. For example, a quick search of “ICRC” notes that while this string is commonly associated with the International Committee of the Red Cross, it is also used by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, the International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium, the Intercollege Relations Commission, and the International Conference of Reformed Churches. Policies should not prohibit or reserve the use of these strings in gTLDs, but rather ensure access to curative rights for the RC (or any of the other organizations) that are harmed when these strings are abused.
Thanks—
J.
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51
To: 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins(a)icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>>
Cc: "'gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Stephane,
You in essence did what I was suggesting Charlotte do. It wasn’t that I didn’t understand but rather that it was a fairly complicated and long message that I thought would benefit from a simpler explanation.
Chuck
From: Stephane Hankins [mailto:shankins@icrc.org]
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 12:50 AM
To: Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>
Cc: 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey(a)icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>; gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>; gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Dear Chuck,
Could you kindly clarify for us what is unclear. Charlotte's message below is to us written in a reasonably plain language.
Point (2) aims to explicate what, in our understanding, an ammendment to the GNSO's 2013 Recommendations would imply in order to achieve a reconciliation with past GAC advice.
Point (3) suggests that in the interest of achieving a reconciliation of the 2013 GNSO recommendation and GAC advice, consideration would also require to be given to the full names of the ICRC and of the International Federation (the two international bodies within the International red Cross and Red Crescent Movement), in addition to the identifiers of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Point (4) confirms our ask regarding the ICRC and IFRC acronyms and suggests that the reconvened WG also consider to issue a recommendation in regard to the latter (in line with the GAC advice).
Point (5) recalls our availability to provide a revised list of name in the interest of consistency, as discussed and requested in Copenhagen.
If the concern is regarding the attachments, please advise what you think could be helpful. The suggestion was made, if I am not mistaken during the last WG session, that further clarity be provided regarding the legal grounds for the protections for the Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers - this is what the attached Report (and its annexes) seek to provide.
Many thanks and kind regards,
Stéphane (and Charlotte - presently on leave)
From: "Chuck Gomes Consulting" <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>
To: "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <clindsey(a)icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>, <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>
Date: 06.08.2017 19:11
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Sent by: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>
________________________________
Thanks for this Charlotte. I appreciate the need for being precise when writing legal language but found that I had to read this several times to grasp what is said. It would be helpful for me if your message was briefly summarized with a list of the key points made.
Chuck
From: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:46 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
Dear Thomas, dear James,
Dear Members of the reconvened Working Group,
(1) Further to the discussions held during the second meeting of the reconvened Working group IGO/INGO Protections PDP Working Group held on 20 July, please find attached a copy of the Non-paper we had submitted to ICANN’s Board and to the process in 2013.
The attached includes a descriptive of the legal protections of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal designations and of the names/identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations under international law and under the domestic laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions.
It includes as an annex an outline of relevant extracts from the first Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the third Additional Protocol adopted in 2005, and a list of national laws in force in different national jurisdictions on the use and protection of the emblems and their designations (the list would require now to be updated to include more recent national laws/Governmental decrees, as adopted inter alia in South Sudan, Sweden and Venezuela).
(2) We take note, as underlined during the recent reconvened Working group discussions, of the WG’s defined objectives to determine whether the current protections accorded to the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (as included under Specification 5 of the Model Registry Agreement) should be confirmed as permanent.
In line with the recommendations of the NGPC/the Board's Resolutions that the GNSO’s 2013 Recommendations be reconciled with the GAC’s consistent advice, this would imply that the GNSO’s 2013 recommendations be revised on two counts:
- firstly, to extend the protections accorded to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal designations (Scope 1 identifiers) to the full exact match names of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations (Scope 2 identifiers); and
- second, to confirm the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (Scope 1 and Scope 2) as permanent.
(3) As recalled during the last reconvened Working Group session and in line with the GNSO’s decision to initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies with regard to Recommendation 5 Section 3.1 of the 2013 Final Report, the extension of the protections should importantly be made to cover not only the names of the respective National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (190 in total to date), but also the full exact match names of the two international components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in the six UN languages. This is congruent with the definition of Scope 2 identifiers as included in the Final Report of the 2013 PDP – page 10.
This is also confirmed under the Board’s Resolution (2017.03.16.13) and the latter's Operative paragraph (1).
Reference is also made in this regard to the GAC’s consistent advice [as expressly stipulated in the GAC Communiqués adopted in Singapore (27 March 2014), Los Angeles (15 October 2014), Singapore (11 February 2015), and confirmed in subsequent advice] that the Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers be afforded permanent protections. We wish to underline in this regard that the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross, of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement are included under Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement and already enjoy temporary protections.
(4) With respect to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms (also included under the definition of Scope 2 names adopted by the GNSO in 2013), the extension of the permanent protections is not requested here, and thus in line with the GAC’s past advice, as adopted in Durban (18 July 2013), that “[t]he same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out […] for the protections of IGO’s be used to also protect the acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC/IFRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR)”. Given however the importance of also protecting the acronyms of the ICRC and of the IFRC (particularly the ICRC acronym under which the ICRC is very commonly known and identified and which forms a part of the ICRC’s institutional logo), we would propose that the reconvened WG consider to issue also a recommendation in regard to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms in line with the GAC’s above-mentioned Durban Communiqué.
(5) Lastly and further to recent exchanges with ICANN Staff, we wish to inform the members of the reconvened Working Group that, in line with the agreement during the Facilitated discussion held in Copenhagen, we are amenable to work further on a revised list of Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers to replace the current list included under Specification 5 – this would notably aim to amend the current titles of the two categories of Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (as these do not offer clarity) and to further harmonize the list of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies identifiers (and their limited and well defined variations).
We also wish members of the WG to note, as indicated during the Copenhagen discussion, that a new National Society is in the process of formation and recognition, namely the “Marshall Islands Red Cross Society” and that its name will also soon require to be added to the list.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further clarification.
With kind regards,
Charlotte
Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
Director
Communication and Information Management Department
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Tel: + 41 22 730 2773<tel:+41%2022%20730%2027%2073>
email: clindsey(a)icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>
Annexes:
- ICRC and IFRC Position paper to ICANN's Board, July/August 2013:
- Extracts from the Government Advisory Committee's Communiqués relevant to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers:
=============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org<http://www.icrc.org/> This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. =============================================================================== _______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
________________________________
The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org<http://www.icrc.org>
This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
3
2
Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 17 August 2017 @ 13:00 UTC
by Berry Cobb Aug. 16, 2017
by Berry Cobb Aug. 16, 2017
Aug. 16, 2017
Dear all,
Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call
(scheduled for Thursday 17 August at 13:00 UTC).
Agenda:
(0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates
(1) Review RCRC submission on the legal basis for protection of identifiers
(http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-August/000047.html)
(2) Review of briefing paper from Copenhagen facilitated discussion
(http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-July/000046.html)
(3) Review compilation of GAC Advice from prior communiques (will be sent to
list shortly)
Thank you.
B
Berry A. Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
720.839.5735
mail(a)berrycobb.com
@berrycobb
3
2
Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers
by Charlotte Lindsey Curtet Aug. 8, 2017
by Charlotte Lindsey Curtet Aug. 8, 2017
Aug. 8, 2017
Dear Thomas, dear James,
Dear Members of the reconvened Working Group,
(1) Further to the discussions held during the second meeting of the
reconvened Working group IGO/INGO Protections PDP Working Group held on 20
July, please find attached a copy of the Non-paper we had submitted to
ICANN’s Board and to the process in 2013.
The attached includes a descriptive of the legal protections of the Red
Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal designations and of the
names/identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
organizations under international law and under the domestic laws in force
in multiple national jurisdictions.
It includes as an annex an outline of relevant extracts from the first
Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the third Additional Protocol adopted in
2005, and a list of national laws in force in different national
jurisdictions on the use and protection of the emblems and their
designations (the list would require now to be updated to include more
recent national laws/Governmental decrees, as adopted inter alia in South
Sudan, Sweden and Venezuela).
(2) We take note, as underlined during the recent reconvened Working group
discussions, of the WG’s defined objectives to determine whether the
current protections accorded to the Red Cross and Red Crescent
designations and identifiers (as included under Specification 5 of the
Model Registry Agreement) should be confirmed as permanent.
In line with the recommendations of the NGPC/the Board's Resolutions that
the GNSO’s 2013 Recommendations be reconciled with the GAC’s consistent
advice, this would imply that the GNSO’s 2013 recommendations be revised
on two counts:
- firstly, to extend the protections accorded to the Red Cross, Red
Crescent and Red Crystal designations (Scope 1 identifiers) to the full
exact match names of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
organizations (Scope 2 identifiers); and
- second, to confirm the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
designations and identifiers (Scope 1 and Scope 2) as permanent.
(3) As recalled during the last reconvened Working Group session and in
line with the GNSO’s decision to initiate its process for Amendments or
Modifications of Approved Policies with regard to Recommendation 5 Section
3.1 of the 2013 Final Report, the extension of the protections should
importantly be made to cover not only the names of the respective National
Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (190 in total to date), but also the
full exact match names of the two international components of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in the six UN languages.
This is congruent with the definition of Scope 2 identifiers as included
in the Final Report of the 2013 PDP – page 10.
This is also confirmed under the Board’s Resolution (2017.03.16.13) and
the latter's Operative paragraph (1).
Reference is also made in this regard to the GAC’s consistent advice [as
expressly stipulated in the GAC Communiqués adopted in Singapore (27 March
2014), Los Angeles (15 October 2014), Singapore (11 February 2015), and
confirmed in subsequent advice] that the Red Cross and Red Crescent
identifiers be afforded permanent protections. We wish to underline in
this regard that the names of the International Committee of the Red
Cross, of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, and of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
are included under Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement and
already enjoy temporary protections.
(4) With respect to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms (also included under the
definition of Scope 2 names adopted by the GNSO in 2013), the extension of
the permanent protections is not requested here, and thus in line with the
GAC’s past advice, as adopted in Durban (18 July 2013), that “[t]he same
complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out […] for the
protections of IGO’s be used to also protect the acronyms of the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC/IFRC) and the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR)”. Given
however the importance of also protecting the acronyms of the ICRC and of
the IFRC (particularly the ICRC acronym under which the ICRC is very
commonly known and identified and which forms a part of the ICRC’s
institutional logo), we would propose that the reconvened WG consider to
issue also a recommendation in regard to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms in
line with the GAC’s above-mentioned Durban Communiqué.
(5) Lastly and further to recent exchanges with ICANN Staff, we wish to
inform the members of the reconvened Working Group that, in line with the
agreement during the Facilitated discussion held in Copenhagen, we are
amenable to work further on a revised list of Red Cross and Red Crescent
identifiers to replace the current list included under Specification 5 –
this would notably aim to amend the current titles of the two categories
of Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (as these do
not offer clarity) and to further harmonize the list of National Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies identifiers (and their limited and well defined
variations).
We also wish members of the WG to note, as indicated during the Copenhagen
discussion, that a new National Society is in the process of formation and
recognition, namely the “Marshall Islands Red Cross Society” and that its
name will also soon require to be added to the list.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further
clarification.
With kind regards,
Charlotte
Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
Director
Communication and Information Management Department
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
Tel: + 41 22 730 2773
email: clindsey(a)icrc.org
Annexes:
- ICRC and IFRC Position paper to ICANN's Board, July/August 2013:
- Extracts from the Government Advisory Committee's Communiqués relevant
to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and
identifiers:
===============================================================================
The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and
other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org
This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient
(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please
delete this e-mail and notify the sender.
===============================================================================
5
11
Dear all,
As requested, please find attached the Briefing Document that was used as one of the reference documents for the facilitated GAC-GNSO discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017. You will see that Annex A of the document (Pages 7-10) contains an outline of the legal protections afforded to the Red Cross Movement and its National Societies, and that the document includes edits made by Red Cross representatives participating in the facilitated dialogue.
The Briefing Document, as well as other documents used for that facilitated discussion, such as overview slides and an agreed Problem Statement, can also be found on this wiki page housing all such documents: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw.
As agreed on the 20 July call, Working Group members are kindly requested to review Annex A (and any other relevant documentation they may find helpful), with a view toward continuing the discussion as to the legal basis and scope of protection for the Red Cross National Society and International Movement names on this mailing list, prior to the next Working Group call (to be scheduled for mid-August).
Thanks and cheers
Mary
3
2