[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Report from Subgroup C

[Mike Rodenbaugh]

1. Attached is a helpful Staff summary of the relevant background materials
(viz. the recommendations from the WIPO-2 Process in 2002, the report from
the ICANN President’s Joint WG in 2004, and the recommendations and
outcomes from the GNSO’s Issue Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and
Abbreviations in 2007) - as circulated by staff to this Sub-Group last week.

2. The Sub-Group’s focus is on identifying circumstances that may have
changed the need for and/or scope of protections for IGO and/or INGO
identifiers since the GNSO’s work in 2007. Please see below for those that
identified by our Subgroup, and please reply with any additional
suggestions you may have:

- *The New gTLD Program*: now we know the scale and scope of the expansion
that was only speculative in 2007

- *Increasing GAC role/IGO request for protections in the New gTLD Program*:
there is now specific GAC advice that there be additional protections for
IGOs (including acronyms) and for the Red Cross and IOC (two INGOs) in the
New gTLD Program. Certain interim protections have been put in place for
some of these while the GNSO completes its work. For IGO acronyms, the
final scope of their protection will depend on (1) the extent of Trademark
Clearinghouse (and accompanying trademark claims notice) protection they
get (see further below); and (2) whether our WG develops recommendations
that will enable them to better use curative rights mechanisms.

- *GNSO recommendations for IGO acronyms differ from GAC advice*: As noted
above, differences remain between the GNSO’s adopted recommendation for IGO
acronyms and the GAC advice. Discussions are ongoing among the Board, GAC
and GNSO on resolving this, which hinge in part on the duration and nature
of TMCH (and TM claims) protection.

- *The creation of added RPMs (e.g. TMCH and URS) for the New gTLD Program*:
however, as noted in the Issue Report for our WG, these may not address IGO
or INGO needs.


3. In our next phase of work (Phase II), we suggest that the full WG
consider these identified changed circumstances alongside the data gathered
by Sub-Groups A and B, to discuss whether these changes and data illustrate
that there is indeed a need (or not) to update the GNSO’s 2007 work by
considering either amending the UDRP and/or URS, or developing a special
dispute resolution procedure, for IGOs or INGOs (either or both).

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141007/60b617f0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Summary of Background Documents for Sub-Group C - 30 Sept.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 143509 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141007/60b617f0/SummaryofBackgroundDocumentsforSub-GroupC-30Sept-0001.docx>