Dear All,

After some long holidays I am back on line.

During my absence the Working Group on the protection of International Organizations' names has reach rough consensus on some points that differ from our position submitted some months ago.

In general our position was:

International Governmental Organizations; IGOs, including the Red Cross (RC) and the Olympic Committee (IOC).

Full protection at the top level, names and acronyms. There are no cases of conflict in the new gTLDs.
Protection of the Full name at the second level, the acronyms are added to the Trademark Clearing House and allowed to participate in the Sunrise period of the new gTLD program.

International Non Governmental Organizations: INGOs, excluding RC and the IOC.

No protection at any level.
Allow them to use the Trademark Clearing House.

Now the new proposal is to grant protection to the INGOs that figure in the Ecosoc List with General Consultative Status or Special Consultative Status. According to the last list there are 148 organizations with General Consultative Status and 2608 in Special Consultative Status.

For organizations with General Consultative Status the proposal is to grant them the same protection as to the IGOs.

For organizations with Special Consultative Status the proposal is to grant them protection at the second level for their exact name and acronyms by including them in a list in the Trademark Clearing House.

The Working Group proposes to modify the UDRP and URS so that they can be used by the protected organizations.

I was a bit surprised that these changes were supported by ALACL and the registries.

My position is to support the protections for IGOs, RC and IOC, they have some legal protections and I think ICANN should grant them protection also. Although in principle I am against any kind of differential treatment to any entity. This was also the ISPC position.

With regards to the INGOs, I don't see any reason to grant them special protections when the governments of any country haven't done so. But in order to reach a consensus in the group and since an important number of the WG participants support some type of protectio for them, I would go as far as granting protections to those INGOs that have General Consultative Status in the Ecosoc list, it's only 148 as of april of this year. As the ALALC stated in some proposals "We can live with it". I don't support granting protection to the NGOs, not all of them are International, that have Special Consultative Status with Ecosoc, they are too many.

If you agree with me I would submit our position.

Best regards,

Osvaldo

Osvaldo Novoa

Subgerente General

Antel

Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22

Montevideo, 11800

Uruguay

Tel. +598 2928 6400

Fax. +598 2928 6401

De: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org] En nombre de Berry Cobb
Enviado el: Jueves, 05 de Septiembre de 2013 01:21
Para: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org
Asunto: [gnso-igo-ingo] v1.2 Consensus Recommendations

WG Members,

Please find attached two copies of the document we are using for the consensus call. One is marked as a clean version and the other is the one containing the track-changes. This version now includes the missing IGO comments and Poncelet’s individual responses. It also includes updates to the principles for implementation based on our discussion today. That section does not yet have GCO input.

Stay tuned for the levels of consensus document from Thomas.

Thank you all again for your participation today,

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

mail@berrycobb.com

@berrycobb

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.