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

Wed Oct 29 07:07:41 UTC 2014

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 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 
> 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 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] On Behalf Of David Cake
>> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:27 PM
>> To: Jim Bikoff
>> Cc: 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> 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
>> 
>> 
>> -----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
>> 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] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:12 PM
>> To: Paul Keating
>> Cc: 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> 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> 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> 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
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> 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
>> 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
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141029/1de21634/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141029/1de21634/signature.asc>