Why can’t we follow here our CSG (IPC) friends? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Novoa, Osvaldo Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:54 PM To: ispcp@icann.org Subject: [ispcp] RV: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) Dear All, I am participating in the Working Group that is revising the policies approved on the protections for IGO and INGOs. I put forward the proposition to not consider the INGOs in this revision, except the Red Cross, since we had considered them in the first WG and the GAC request, which was the reason for this new WG, was with respect to the IGOs and the Red Cross. A significant number of the WG members supported this idea. I would like to hear from you in order to be able to present the position of our constituency. Mary Wong's mail is quite clear on what should be decided. Thank you and best regards, Osvaldo Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Mary Wong Enviado el: Miércoles, 29 de Octubre de 2014 19:41 CC: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Asunto: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) Dear all, As noted on the WG call today, the consideration of INGO identifiers for additional/amended curative rights protection was supported by multiple GNSO constituencies during the prior PDP Working Group consensus process. As George noted in his original email (below), the primary rationale seems to have been that put forward by an NCSG representative; in some constituencies such support also saw some opposition (but not sufficient to overturn the final consensus conclusion). As such, staff recommends that Stakeholder Group and Constituency representatives on this WG whose respective groups supported the inclusion and equivalent treatment of INGOs as for IGOs check back with those groups on the emerging consensus within this WG that INGOs be dropped from further consideration in this PDP. Please circulate your groups’ respective agreement or disagreement via email as soon as possible so that this WG can finalize its consideration of this question. In relation to the Red Cross movement, staff recommends that this WG consider whether, in light of their protection under international treaties and multiple national laws, they – and for the same reason the International Olympic Committee – can be considered separately from the other INGOs who do not have the same extent of legal protections (as noted several times by the GAC). To assist your review of this last point as well as for your convenient reference, staff has compiled the attached document which has the language excerpts from recent, relevant GAC Communiques that relate to IGO and Red Cross curative rights protections. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: David Cake <dave@difference.com.au> Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 3:07 AM To: "petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) I am OK with including the Red Cross, but based on the special case of the protection given to their identifiers under the Geneva Convention and associated national laws, rather than simply because it is an INGO. I am not sure if those identifiers are relevant to this WG, but I'd rather err on the side of caution at this stage. The Red Cross themselves seem unhappy with their consideration by this WG so far, but I think rather because of dissatisfaction with the approach taken so far rather than because they do not want curative rights mechanisms. It may be best to leave the question open for the moment, until the issue can be addressed specifically, but in any case I think the inclusion of the ICRC should be considered separately to the issue of INGOs in general. Regards David On 29 Oct 2014, at 8:41 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote: I agree with this conclusion. The only question I have is if Red Cross in this respect shall be included, or if we shall and can proceed only with clear IGO's. The latter would be the most clear way to deal with our task, and it is also more easy to create a special dispute resolution policy for IGO's only (as it seems what we shall focus on now, rather than amendments of URS and/or UDRP). Looking forward to dicuss this further with you all tomorrow (or later on today, Oct 29). Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 28 oktober 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> skrev: As co-Chair I see a consensus forming. We can discuss and decide on tomorrow's call. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:27 PM To: Jim Bikoff Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) I agree with Kathy, Osvaldo, Jim. Unless there is a clear demonstration of a separate legal status for INGOs that was not addressed in previous WGs, we should drop it. Regards David On 28 Oct 2014, at 12:00 am, Jim Bikoff <jbikoff@sgbdc.com> wrote: I agree. Jim James L. Bikoff Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP 1101 30th Street, NW Suite 120 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-944-3303 Fax: 202-944-3306 jbikoff@sgbdc.com -----Original Message----- From: Kathryn Kleiman [mailto:kleiman@fhhlaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:43 AM To: Jim Bikoff; Paul Keating Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) It is my opinion that we should focus on the IGOs and consider that the measures approved by the GNSO Council regarding the INGOs are sufficient. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa I agree with Osvaldo Novoa and Jim Bikoff on this - I think we should focus on IGOs and not INGOs. For if we address IGO and INGOs, then NGOs will want to be involved. Since it is a very loose area of existing protections, I recommend we stay with those of the clearest provable protections (and determining what the means) - IGOs. Best, Kathy -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:12 PM To: Paul Keating Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO) We strongly agree with Osvaldo. Jim Bikoff Sent from my iPhone On Oct 15, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote: Hi all, I know I have been absent from the last several calls (family issues), however, I feel that we should address both IGOs and INGOs. If we don't we run the risk of inconsistency and future conflict. Regards, Paul Keating On 15 Oct 2014, at 9:03 pm, Novoa, Osvaldo <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote: I think that the INGOs were sufficiently considered in the first policy and hat is now been revised. The revision arises from a request by the GAC, through the NGPC, to modify the decisions with regards to the IGOs acronyms and some on the Red Cross. It is my opinion that we should focus on the IGOs and consider that the measures approved by the GNSO Council regarding the INGOs are sufficient. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa El 15/10/2014, a las 11:33, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> escribió: Hi folks, During today's conference call, the topic of how INGOs got into this process was raised. Researching the mailing list of the prior working group, I believe the origin was the message at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-igo-ingo/msg00885.html where one of the participants put forward the idea that: "Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks" which, as Kristine noted in the chatroom during the call (I don't think the transcript is available yet, but will be) is probably not correct. i.e. her exact words were "I rather suspect it's much harder to get included in a treaty than to get on the ECOSOC list..." I agree with Kristine. Anyhow, I thought it would be good to capture this "history", in case we want to revisit this so-called "rationale" for adding INGOs. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp 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. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.