[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)

Tue Dec 11 05:47:53 EET 2012

Thanks, Robin.  

Folks - I unaccountably got dropped from the INGO WG mailing list for a
couple of weeks and so missed a lot of the discussions and at least one
call, sorry :( I will be catching up as best I can, via email archives
and so on, but thought I should ask - how do we want to coordinate our
response to this? 

Cheers 
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  

>>> 

From:  
Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

To: 
NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
12/8/2012 8:35 PM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and
INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) 

Begin forwarded message: 

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> 

Date: December 7, 2012 12:32:04 PM PST 

To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

Cc: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail
<mail at berrycobb.com>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org> 

Subject: Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO
Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) 

Dear Robin, 
The PDP Working Group on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in
all gTLDs (IGO-INGO) would appreciate the NCSG?s input through the
attached  Input Template also in text below:
Thank you. 
Kind regards, 

Glen 

Stakeholder Group / Constituency / Input Template  
Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs Working Group 

PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY 15 January 2013 TO THE
GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org), which will forward
your statement to the Working Group. 

The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested stakeholders
and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives, to collaborate
broadly with knowledgeable individuals and organizations, in order to
consider recommendations in relation to the protection of names,
designations and acronyms, hereinafter referred to as ?identifiers?, of
intergovernmental organizations (IGO?s) and international
non-governmental organizations (INGO?s) receiving protections under
treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions. 

Part of the Working Group?s effort will be to incorporate ideas and
suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies through
this template Statement.  Inserting your response in this form will make
it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the responses for
analysis. This information is helpful to the community in understanding
the points of view of various stakeholders. However, you should feel
free to add any information you deem important to inform the Working
Group?s deliberations, even if this does not fit into any of the
questions listed below. 

For further information, please visit the WG Webpage and Workspace: 
http://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/ 

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm 

Process 
-        Please identify the member(s) of your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency who is (are) participating in this Working Group 
-        Please identify the members of your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set forth
below 
-        Please describe the process by which your Stakeholder Group /
Constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below 

Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked
to address: 
As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is
a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top
and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at
a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final
Issue Report: 

?        Quantifying the Entities whose names  may be Considered for
Special Protection 
?        Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under
International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; 
?        Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of 
names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; 
?        Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC
and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. 

Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a
need for special protections at the top and second levels in all
existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers, the
PDP WG is expected to: 

?        Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special
protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO
organizations at the first and second levels. 
?        Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and
IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and
make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. 
?        Determine whether the current special protections being
provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the
initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC
names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections
are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific
recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these
identifiers. 

Questions to Consider: 

1.      What kinds of entities should be considered for Special
Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)?

Group View: 

2.      What facts or law are you aware of which might form an
objective basis for Special Protections under International
Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and
the DNS? 

Group View: 

3.      Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for
Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? 

Group View: 

4.      Do you think there are substantive differences between the
RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? 

Group View: 

5.      Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second
level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? 

Group View: 

6.      In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of
IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of
new gTLDs? 

Group View: 

7.      Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and
IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs
be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations
for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? 

Group View: 

8.      Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD
program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs
(understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and
INGOs)? 

Group View: 

For further background information on the WG?s activities to date,
please see: 

?        Protections of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs web page
(see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm). 
?        Protection of International Organization Names Final Issue
Report, for insight into the current practices and issues experienced
(see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf).

?        The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those
efforts were combined with this PDP (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm). 

Glen de Saint G?ry 
GNSO Secretariat 
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 
http://gnso.icann.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20121210/17e68d8a/attachment-0001.html>