September 2017 - Gnso-igo-ingo

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDS PDP WG on Red Cross Names on 7 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Sept. 7, 2017

Sept. 7, 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, 7 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-07sep17-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4s9tsrbo86/<https://participate.icann.org/p4s9tsrbo86/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=896f95e112d5b2ad…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<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/rhghB ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ——————————————— Adobe Connect chat transcript for 7 September 2017 Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO INGO PDP Working Group on Red Cross names on Thursday, 7 September 2017 at 14:00 UTC Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi all! Ken Stubbs - Afilias:hurricane hitting st.maarten yesterday https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mahobeachcam.com_&d… Nathalie Peregrine:Stephane Hankins has joined the audio bridge Mary Wong:We can put up the language from the Convention on the screen, if that is helpful. Mary Wong:The relevant Articles that the Red Cross representatives also spoke to on the last call, and followed up on email, is on Page 3. Greg Shatan:Very good point Heather about what needs to go to Council. Council is not a rubber stamp either. But it needs a succinct briefing that allows Council to exercise their judgment. Heather Forrest:I anticipate that if Council does not receive a comprehensible rationale for this group's recommendations, it will send the recommendations back with a request for more information. Let's prevent that from happening. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:cant we use the agree button Mary Wong:Here is the list of Red Cross National Society names currently under interim reservation: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_sites_de… Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Thanks, Mary! Heather Forrest:Indeed this list must be finite and every possible punctuation/misspelling variation cannot possibly be captured Heather Forrest:I note that "spr" and "frk" are on the list - these are acronyms (I presume) and thus cannot be part of our consideration Mary Wong:The AC screen shows you a snapshot of the list - to illustrate Thomas' point about the various forms of each National Society name. Greg Shatan:How many strings are on this list? Greg Shatan:I see mkkk as another acronym. Mary Wong:Note that acronyms are NOT part of the scope of the work of this group - we have been tasked to only consider the names. Greg Shatan:We need a list without the acronyms, then. Mary Wong:The list includes acronyms for now because the Board resolution included acronyms as part of the INTERIM reservation. Mary Wong:@Greg, yes Heather Forrest:+1 Greg. As per Mary's comment, acronyms are not within our scope Mary Wong:There is no request for reservation of Red Cross acronyms on the table - and the GAC did not ask for this either (for RC acronyms). Greg Shatan:I don't see CIRC on the list. Am I missing something? Heather Forrest:We need clarification for the non-ASCII scripts to ensure these are not acronyms Greg Shatan:How did the temporary block pick the acronyms out of this list? Greg Shatan:i.e., only to apply the names. Greg Shatan:If acronyms are off the table, they need to be. out of the table as well. Mary Wong:The acronyms remain an outstanding issue to be resolved separately from this Working Group's scope. Mary Wong:The Scope 2 language Berry is mentioning has been pasted into the Notes pod on the right Heather Forrest:Given that this list on the screen was developed by staff, can we have access to the original list as provided by ICRC? Greg Shatan:Barbados is an English language country.... Chuck Gomes:Can we have scroll control? Mary Wong:@Heather, @Greg, we will try to locate the list from the Red Cross. Please give us a moment. Nathalie Peregrine:@Chuck, enabled. Chuck Gomes:Thanks Heather Forrest:No rush, Mary, and thanks Chuck Gomes:I suggest that we don't spend time debating variations that are non-controversial such as with or without the article 'the'. Mary Wong:The GAC request in relation to language: "in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin". Heather Forrest:Picking up on Stephane's point just now, I believe that whatever criteria we establish, we should apply them consistently throughout the entire list Thomas Rickert:general formular for the composition of blocked strings: 1. names of the society- official version- version the societies are known by2. With and without hyphen3. Inclusion of the article4. Inclusion or not of the word „society“ Thomas Rickert:official language(s) of the country of origin of the society + EN Chuck Gomes:In some cases there be more than one offical language. Chuck Gomes:So the (s) is important in 'language(s)'. Ken Stubbs - Afilias:cannot agree with acronym request ! Chuck Gomes:We are not considering acronyms. Chuck Gomes:I like Thomas's suggested criteria. Greg Shatan:Does this mean that each national society generates at least 8 strings, assuming English language only? Ken Stubbs - Afilias:+1 chuck.. no mention of acronyms in our documents other than acronyms were not considered as they were out of scope for our group Greg Shatan:And 8 for each other language, assuming use of articles? Berry Cobb:Here is the orginal list that was used later to help build what is in Spec 5 today. https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issu… Heather Forrest:Helpful, Berry, thank you Greg Shatan:I think it's important to understand that when we throw around the number 190, that is not anywhere close to the number of blocked strings.... Greg Shatan:@Chuck, I think that's what RPMs are for. Berry Cobb:It is also complicated in that some society names submitted exceed 63 charachters when converted to DNS Labels. Also a few of the society names that were in this list were only images, and staff could not generate a DNS label from it. Lastly, society names submitted in not latin charachter, were converted to IDN u-labels Berry Cobb:sorry IDN a-labels Stephane Hankins:Mary - to be added variations of names with or without the word "Society". Heather Forrest:+1 Greg - what we are considering here is not the only avenue of protection available Mary Wong:@Stephane, thank you - I've updated the notes Greg Shatan:UDRP should be available in many of those cases, Chuck. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel that as long as we have a defined list of protected names with a finite list of variations we should go this way... Mary Wong:All, here is the pertinent part of the GNSO Council's request, regarding the scope of names: "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". Chuck Gomes:Thanks Thomas. Greg Shatan:"Variations" should be dealt with in the curative rights arena (and PDP). Heather Forrest:again this precise point is not within our scope. There is an existing PDP on this topic Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):The GNSO Resolution is clear that we have as our task to also look ar a defined limited set of variations of these names Mary Wong:@Jorge, yes, exactly. Which means that any variant that is NOT on the defined limited set of names will need to be dealt with by curative rights processes. Greg Shatan:The defined limited set of variations is covered by the presence or not of "the" and "society". Variations are not "imitations." Greg Shatan:We will need to see the real list of strings in advance and not the mish-mash that is on the Spec 5 list. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):@Thomas/staff: please circulate this plan (you are just explaining) in writing - it would help to keep up :-) Mary Wong:@Jorge, we will do that. Heather Forrest:Excellent progress and leadership, Thomas. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):+1 Heather Greg Shatan:Sounds like a plan, Thomas. Heather Forrest:No objections, it's 1am here Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I'm sure ICANN staff can help very much in developing the list :-) Greg Shatan:I thought we had 3 years.... Mary Wong:If we may, staff would like to note for the record that Stephane and his colleagues have, as he has mentioned, kindly offered previously to work with us to develop a clean, more updated list. Mary Wong:From the ICANN side, we can only work with the lists that we have been provided with. Greg Shatan:From the WG side as well, Mary! Heather Forrest:Thanks Thomas Greg Shatan:Thank you, Thomas and all! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks Thomas and all, bye!

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 7 September 2017 @ 14:00 UTC
by Berry Cobb Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call (scheduled for Thursday 7 September at 14:00 UTC). Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Discussion of additional questions on the legal basis, if any (2) Consensus call on legal basis (if possible) (3) Review scope of protections (list of labels currently reserved as placed on Specification 5) https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNa mes.xml#red-cross-international (4) Next scheduled meeting Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Follow-up to certain points raised during the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Red Crescent protections / ConfCall tomorrow Thursday
by Stephane Hankins Sept. 6, 2017

Sept. 6, 2017

Dear Thomas, Dear members of the reconvened WG group, (1) I am not sure the agreement was that we would submit a renewed outline of the legal protections of the designations (words, names). We may refer you to our full report submitted to the Board in 2013 and which was circulated to the Group recently. We are also attaching a new brief outlining the provisions included in a chosen list of national laws confirming i) the right/entitlement of the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society in the given country to make use of the designations (words, names); ii) the protections accorded to the designations (words, names) under domestic law and the penal sanctions applicable to misuse thereof. Our records suggest that national legislation on the use and the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations (words, names) exist in over 120 national jurisdictions. As rightfully noted by Chris in his message, in many countries (so-called monist jurisdictions), international treaties such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005 are directly applicable in the domestic legal order of States parties, and thus, without the requirement, in principle, of national implementing legislation. (2) We appreciate that tomorrow’s reconvened working group session is the last discussion prior to the GNSO’s closed session, but wish to recommend that those lawyers within the GNSO Council take a closer look at the documents submitted. This should ensure an informed decision that is in line with the international legal protections accorded to the designations (words, names) and with the internationally defined uses of the same (including by the national and international components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for the purpose of identification). (3) As suggested at the end of the last call, we take this opportunity to lay out once more in writing a summary of the main points of the case for extending the current protections/reservations to the identifiers of the respective National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and for recommending that these protections be made permanent. We appreciate that this has been submitted many times before and please understand that we are not in a position to add new legal grounds to what should constitute an already solid case. The legal case 1) The designations (words, names) “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Lion and Sun” are protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977. The designation (words, name) “Red Crystal” is on its part protected under the combined provisions of the 2005 Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions and Resolution 1 unanimously by the 29th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 2005 (and therefore by all States parties to the Geneva Conventions as members of the International Conference). States have an international obligation under these international treaties to ensure the protection of these designations (words, names) and to adopt, if their legislation is not already adequate, measures necessary for the repression, at all times, of abuses of the designations (words, names). There are 196 Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the list thereof may be accessed on the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs – as it is the Swiss Federal Council which exercises the function of Depository of these international treaties. 2) There are two recognized uses of the distinctive emblems and of their designations (words, names): one is “protective use” in times of armed conflict, the other is “indicative use” to indicate a link with the International Movement of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and its respective components (the 190 recognized National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the ICRC and the IFRC). The use by Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies is stipulated under Article 44 para. 1 to 3 of the first Geneva Convention of 1949. The Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations are hence recognized under international law (and the domestic legislation in force in a majority of countries) the legal right to make use of the designations (words, names). This is alternatively provided for under different types of national legislation (in a national legislation on the use and protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, in a national legislation on the recognition/status of a National Society in the domestic legal order, etc.). National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have an express duty under the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to make use of one of the names (and distinctive emblems) in conformity with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. This constitutes one of 10 Conditions for recognition of National Societies as a component of the Movement (Article 4 of the Statutes of the Movement). It is furthermore confirmed in the agreed practice of the Movement that, when used for indicative (identification) purposes as part of a National Society’s official name, the words require to be accompanied by an adjective indicating national affiliation (“British Red Cross Society”, “Croix-Rouge canadienne”, etc.). 3) In legal terms, the designations (words, names) require to be protected from misuse at all times. This implies that they be protected from misuse - in both their authorized uses and displays (including when used as part of the name of one of the Red Cross or Red Crescent organizations, including the National Societies); - whether displayed on their own or when used together with other words or designs. The protections would be meaningful if they did not extend to the use of the designations when used or displayed in combination with other words. Absent the possibility of a string similarity review mechanism as we are explained, and with a view to ensuring an effective protection of the designations in their indicative function, there is no other way but to extend the protections and reservations of the designations (words, names) in the domain name system to the names and identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations. The public policy case Besides the legal case outlined above and which should of itself ground the global public policy considerations for the protections, we have also in the past highlighted a range of additional considerations for the extension of the reservations to the full names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations, in particular the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. These include in particular to: - the distinct roles and mandates recognized to a National Society under international law and under domestic laws – thus including, the distinct and privileged status and responsibilities of National Societies as an auxiliary to the public authorities in the humanitarian field in their own country; - the particular risks of fraudulent use of the names and identifiers of National Societies (and of the Movement as a whole) which may occur, particularly in the event of a humanitarian emergency. We are attaching once again the intervention by Charlotte Lindsey, ICRC’s Director of Communication and Information Management, to the GNSO Council as presented on 14th April 2016, which provided elements to this question. Until tomorrow. With best regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 12:37 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com>; christopher.lamb17(a)gmail.com; Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Subject: IMPORTANT: Are there more questions? Dear all, Thanks for this vivid exchange of e-mails. As we prepare for the upcoming call it would be great to understand whether there are open questions with respect to the legal basis for protections. If so, please send them to the list prior to the call so we can hopefully get answers for everyone’s consideration before or during the call. If there are no questions on the list, we have to assume there are none and that we can proceed to a mini consensus call on the aspect of the legal basis for protections. If there are questions, we hope to get them answered and move to the mini consensus call. An agenda for the call will be circulated shortly. Best, Thomas > Am 04.09.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>: > > Dear Chuck and everyone, > > In addition to the information from Christopher, we understand that the Red Cross representatives may be preparing an updated list of the protections that the Red Cross names currently under discussion may be entitled to under various national laws. In the meantime, Working Group members may find helpful the initial research that ICANN Legal performed, as part of the work of the original PDP Working Group, relating to the protection of the terms associated with the Red Cross, International Olympic Committee and IGOs: see Annex 5 of the Final Report - https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf (please note that the research was limited to answering a specific question that was posed at the time by the Working Group, as reflected in the introductory text to this Annex). > > Working Group members may also find helpful the current, interim list of reserved names of the Red Cross National Societies: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedN… . Please note that, as part of the current scope of work for this group, the GNSO Council has expressly requested that the group consider the specific names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies as well as a specific, limited set of variants of those names. As you may recall, the Red Cross representatives have kindly offered to work with ICANN and the Working Group to develop and agree on the final list of names and variants, if and when appropriate. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary =============================================================================== 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. ===============================================================================

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] IMPORTANT: Are there more questions?
by Chuck Sept. 5, 2017

Sept. 5, 2017

I asked my questions and received reasonably good answers. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:thomas@rickert.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 12:37 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Thomas Rickert <thomas(a)rickert.net>; Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com>; christopher.lamb17(a)gmail.com; Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Subject: IMPORTANT: Are there more questions? Dear all, Thanks for this vivid exchange of e-mails. As we prepare for the upcoming call it would be great to understand whether there are open questions with respect to the legal basis for protections. If so, please send them to the list prior to the call so we can hopefully get answers for everyone’s consideration before or during the call. If there are no questions on the list, we have to assume there are none and that we can proceed to a mini consensus call on the aspect of the legal basis for protections. If there are questions, we hope to get them answered and move to the mini consensus call. An agenda for the call will be circulated shortly. Best, Thomas > Am 04.09.2017 um 01:18 schrieb Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>: > > Dear Chuck and everyone, > > In addition to the information from Christopher, we understand that the Red Cross representatives may be preparing an updated list of the protections that the Red Cross names currently under discussion may be entitled to under various national laws. In the meantime, Working Group members may find helpful the initial research that ICANN Legal performed, as part of the work of the original PDP Working Group, relating to the protection of the terms associated with the Red Cross, International Olympic Committee and IGOs: see Annex 5 of the Final Report - https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf (please note that the research was limited to answering a specific question that was posed at the time by the Working Group, as reflected in the introductory text to this Annex). > > Working Group members may also find helpful the current, interim list of reserved names of the Red Cross National Societies: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedN…. Please note that, as part of the current scope of work for this group, the GNSO Council has expressly requested that the group consider the specific names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies as well as a specific, limited set of variants of those names. As you may recall, the Red Cross representatives have kindly offered to work with ICANN and the Working Group to develop and agree on the final list of names and variants, if and when appropriate. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > On 9/3/17, 10:19, "gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of Chuck" <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of consult(a)cgomes.com> wrote: > > Thanks Chris. > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: christopher.lamb17(a)gmail.com [mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 1:47 AM > To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com>; Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch; > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain > pointsraisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened WorkingGroup onRed > Cross protections > > Dear Chuck, > > On the words and national names: Yes, with a very few exceptions. > > To your other question about other jurisdictions, also Yes although some > have also expanded the language to incorporate the Red Crystal adopted from > the 2005 Third Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Please note > though that some jurisdictions and legal systems don't require domestic > legislation because the treaty language automatically becomes part of > domestic law by virtue of becoming a party to the treaty. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck > Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 09:51 > To: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch ; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain > pointsraisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened WorkingGroup onRed > Cross protections > > Do all of the national names under consideration contain the words > themselves? > > Chuck > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch [mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 1:02 PM > To: consult(a)cgomes.com; gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points > raisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group onRed Cross > protections > > Sorry for coming back again, but on page 3 of the ICRC Memo, footnote 2, > article 44 of the first Geneva Convention is quoted wherein the protection > of the "words" themselves is warranted: > > > > 2 The first Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the > Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949 provides > equal protection to the emblems of the red cross, red crescent and red lion > and sun. Article 44 provides that "[...] 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 other emblems mentioned in > Article 38, paragraph 2, in respect of the countries that use them [the red > crescent, the red lion and sun]". > > Best > > Jorge > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > Datum: 25. August 2017 um 20:47:37 MESZ > An: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com> > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points > raisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group onRed Cross > protections > > I believe some have argued that the term "designation" refers to the names > "Red Cross", etc. > > However it is significant that Art. 53 of the first Geneva Convention, > quoted by Christopher, refers to "the emblem or the designation " Red Cross > " or " Geneva Cross "." After some research, it appears fairly clear that > "Geneva Cross" is another name for the "red cross on a white ground" symbol, > and is NOT used as a name or words referring to the Red Cross organizations. > In other words, there is no Geneva Cross name. > > Thus, it seems to make sense that both "emblem" and "designation" refer to > the symbols and not to the words. This is consistent with Christopher's > explanation as well. > > Greg > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Chuck > <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> wrote: > Thanks very much Chris. Am I correct then in concluding that 'designation' > is just another form of the emblem (i.e., symbol)? Is there no language in > any of the treaties or laws that mentions the organization names? If so, on > what legal basis can we use for protecting the names? > > Note that I am not opposed to protecting the names but am just trying to > find a legal basis if there is one. > > Chuck > > From: christopher.lamb17(a)gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> > [mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>] > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 9:11 AM > To: Chuck <consult(a)cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'Mary Wong' > <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; > gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> > > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points > raisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group onRed Cross > protections > > Dear Chuck, > > The terms you mention are, for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions, > explained in the first and third paragraphs of Article 53 of the First > Geneva Convention 1949, as follows: > > "Art. 53. 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. > ... > > Nevertheless, such High Contracting Parties as were not party to the Geneva > Convention of 27 July 1929, may grant to prior users of the emblems, > designations, signs or marks designated in the first paragraph, a time limit > not to exceed three years from the coming into force of the present > Convention to discontinue such use provided that the said use shall not be > such as would appear, in time of war, to confer the protection of the > Convention." > > So, the designation is the formal name of the emblem, provided for it by the > treaty. I hope this helps. > > Chris > > > From: Chuck > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 23:21 > To: 'Mary Wong' ; gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points > raisedduring the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group onRed Cross > protections > > Thanks Mary. I have some questions for the legal experts, especially those > familiar with terminology used in international treaties. > > The following terminology is used repeatedly in the applicable laws: > "distinctive emblems and their designations". I understand 'emblems' to > mean the actual symbols but what do 'designations' mean? In other words, > what is a designation of one of the emblems? One thing that is confusing to > me is that all the laws/treaties clearly protect the emblems. How do they > apply to the names themselves? > > 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 Mary Wong > Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 2:52 PM > To: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] FOR INFORMATION: Notes on certain points raised > during the 17 August call of the reconvened Working Group on Red Cross > protections > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume… > JAc/edit?usp=sharing. > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… ). > > We hope the summary is helpful to your further deliberations. > > Thanks and cheers > Mary > > From: > <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> on > behalf of Julie Bisland > <julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org>> > Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 12:06 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" > <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>> > Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" > <gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@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: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gn… > > > 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: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group… <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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… <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_- > 2Dg8hB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARos > RvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=k1wo94sSUbWaoqtfbcQCj5rK4YOaypeUgXO53UhSvC > k&s=I_16BY_qfDXIQ9fNax5rRL2xH8tGd-iAP7ADs611zJI&e= > > 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_resources > _board-2Dmaterial_resolutions-2D2017-2D03-2D16-2Den-232.e.i&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u > 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNm > BM5XgySw&m=k1wo94sSUbWaoqtfbcQCj5rK4YOaypeUgXO53UhSvCk&s=rKKnEHJ1PqpyngYHDII > thQ4ae8EPxlaAFXESSak4X7o&e= > > 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=op > enDocument&documentId=5CCB6DD2AB618FABC12563CD0051A251 > > 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 > > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ________________________________ > [Avast logo]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru… > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antiviru… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

1 0

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

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