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
Team – My intention was to send this reply to the entire group, not off-list. Thanks— J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:26 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@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@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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <jbladel@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:19 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51 To: 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Cc: 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>; gnso-secs@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> To: "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>, <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
Dear all, dear staff, As a matter of clarification, may I request confirmation by staff (or anyone else with precise info on this) whether (1) the curative protections we are discussing would be in scope of the ongoing PDP WG on Curative protections, and (2) whether a discussion of curative protections for the Red Cross in that PDP WG is still possible as a matter of where they stand in their process? Thanks in advance and regards Jorge Von: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von James M. Bladel Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. August 2017 21:09 An: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-igo-ingo] 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 Team – My intention was to send this reply to the entire group, not off-list. Thanks— J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:26 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <jbladel@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:19 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51 To: 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Cc: 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>; gnso-secs@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> To: "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>, <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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@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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
Dear Jorge and everyone, I hope the responses below from the staff perspective are helpful: 1. The scope of the ongoing PDP on Curative Rights includes International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) as well as IGOs; thus, the Red Cross will fall within scope, as would the International Olympic Committee (IOC). IOC representatives are participating in the PDP Working Group, and thus were part of the discussions over whether the existing curative rights processes should be amended to address specific issues faced by INGOs. 2. The Working Group is aware of the GAC advice that the same mechanisms as are recommended for IGOs should extend to the Red Cross as well. As you know, however, the Working Group is finalizing its recommendations on this aspect of the topic as regards IGOs, and has published a preliminary recommendation for INGOs (including the Red Cross and IOC) that does not recommend any changes for these groups. As part of the final discussions overall, staff expects that the Working Group will circle back to the GAC advice just mentioned, to ensure that all its final recommendations have been developed after consideration of all input received, including, of course, all relevant GAC advice. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 03:13 To: "jbladel@godaddy.com" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] 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 Dear all, dear staff, As a matter of clarification, may I request confirmation by staff (or anyone else with precise info on this) whether (1) the curative protections we are discussing would be in scope of the ongoing PDP WG on Curative protections, and (2) whether a discussion of curative protections for the Red Cross in that PDP WG is still possible as a matter of where they stand in their process? Thanks in advance and regards Jorge Von: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von James M. Bladel Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. August 2017 21:09 An: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Betreff: [Gnso-igo-ingo] 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 Team – My intention was to send this reply to the entire group, not off-list. Thanks— J. From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:26 To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@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@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> <jbladel@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:19 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>>; 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Date: Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51 To: 'Stephane Hankins' <shankins@icrc.org<mailto:shankins@icrc.org>> Cc: "'gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>'" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> Cc: 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>; gnso-secs@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@cgomes.com<mailto:consult@cgomes.com>> To: "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <clindsey@icrc.org<mailto:clindsey@icrc.org>>, <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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@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@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@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@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[icrc.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icrc.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c...> 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@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[icrc.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icrc.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=...> 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@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
participants (3)
-
James M. Bladel -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mary Wong