[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this process (as opposed to IGO)

Wed Oct 29 01:11:08 UTC 2014

I agree also, although I would not include the Red Cross since it is clearly not an IGO. It has always been categorized as an INGO.

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 at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 28, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at 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 at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
www.fenixlegal.eu<http://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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you

28 oktober 2014, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at 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 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:27 PM
To: Jim Bikoff
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at 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 at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at 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 at sgbdc.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgbdc.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Kathryn Kleiman [mailto:kleiman at fhhlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:43 AM
To: Jim Bikoff; Paul Keating
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at 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 at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Paul Keating
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at 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 at law.es<mailto:paul at 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 at antel.com.uy<mailto:onovoa at 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 at leap.com<mailto:icann at 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 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at 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 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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 at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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/20141029/8fd520ef/attachment-0001.html>