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

[Petter Rindforth]

Thanks!
/ P.

-- 
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 at 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


7 oktober 2014, Mike Rodenbaugh skrev:
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141007/c75f509f/attachment.html>