[Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers

Tue Aug 8 16:19:16 UTC 2017

James,

I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that acronyms are in
scope?  Looking at the background for this reconvened WG, I came to the
opposite conclusion (as stated in my prior email).

Thanks!

Greg

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM, jbladel at godaddy.com <jbladel at godaddy.com>
wrote:

> Thanks, Chuck.
>
>
>
> Well, acronyms are in scope, insomuch as we acknowledge that they are more
> suited for inclusion in the work on IGO/INGO Curative Rights (as Stephane
> points out).
>
>
>
> Thanks—
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com> on behalf of Chuck
> Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 10:19
> *To: *"James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, 'Stephane Hankins' <
> shankins at icrc.org>
> *Cc: *"'gnso-secs at icann.org'" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
>
>
> James,
>
>
>
> In my opinion you summarized the issues of our work in a concise, clear
> and useful manner, understanding that acronyms are apparently out of scope
> for this WG.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* jbladel at godaddy.com [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:31 AM
> *To:* Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>; 'Stephane Hankins' <
> shankins at icrc.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org; gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
>
>
> Thanks to Chuck, Stephane and especially Charlotte for their valuable
> contributions in this thread.
>
>
>
> If we go back to the Facilitated Discussions in Copenhagen, we landed on
> three factors for reconsidering protections for RC/RC strings in the DNS
> (note, these are also reflected in the GNSO Council resolution that
> re-activated this PDP).  Roughly paraphrased, they were:
>
>    - That the protections were based upon / reflected in national and
>    international law, and
>    - That the list of covered strings was finite, and was amended only
>    via consistent & visible processes, and
>    - There were no other legitimate uses for the string.
>
>
>
> Circling back to Charlotte’s message, her points (1) and (2) and (3) are
> meant to establish that the first two tests are being met. Similarly,
> points (3) and (5) help to define the list of covered strings as finite,
> and only occasionally modified via well-established processes (Marshall
> Islands). However, I believe that point (4) (ICRC and IFRC) fail the third
> test:  requiring that there are no other legitimate uses for the strings.
>
>
>
> This is always a problem with acronyms, as they often collide with
> unrelated terms, organizations, or industries.  For example, a quick search
> of “ICRC” notes that while this string is commonly associated with the
> International Committee of the Red Cross, it is also used by the Indiana
> Civil Rights Commission, the International Certification and Reciprocity
> Consortium, the Intercollege Relations Commission, and the International
> Conference of Reformed Churches.  Policies should not prohibit or reserve
> the use of these strings in gTLDs, but rather ensure access to curative
> rights for the RC (or any of the other organizations) that are harmed when
> these strings are abused.
>
>
> Thanks—
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Chuck Gomes
> Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Date: *Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51
> *To: *'Stephane Hankins' <shankins at icrc.org>
> *Cc: *"'gnso-secs at icann.org'" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
>
>
> Stephane,
>
>
>
> You in essence did what I was suggesting Charlotte do.  It wasn’t that I
> didn’t understand but rather that it was a fairly complicated and long
> message that I thought would benefit from a simpler explanation.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephane Hankins [mailto:shankins at icrc.org <shankins at icrc.org>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 12:50 AM
> *To:* Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> *Cc:* 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey at icrc.org>;
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
>
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> Could you kindly clarify for us what is unclear. Charlotte's message below
> is to us written in a reasonably plain language.
>
> Point (2) aims to explicate what, in our understanding, an ammendment to
> the GNSO's 2013 Recommendations would imply in order to achieve a
> reconciliation with past GAC advice.
>
> Point (3) suggests that in the interest of achieving a reconciliation of
> the 2013 GNSO recommendation and GAC advice, consideration would also
> require to be given to the full names of the ICRC and of the International
> Federation (the two international bodies within the International red Cross
> and Red Crescent Movement), in addition to the identifiers of National Red
> Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
>
> Point (4) confirms our ask regarding the ICRC and IFRC acronyms and
> suggests that the reconvened WG also consider to issue a recommendation in
> regard to the latter (in line with the GAC advice).
>
> Point (5) recalls our availability to provide a revised list of name in
> the interest of consistency, as discussed and requested in Copenhagen.
>
> If the concern is regarding the attachments, please advise what you think
> could be helpful. The suggestion was made, if I am not mistaken during the
> last WG session, that further clarity be provided regarding the legal
> grounds for the protections for the Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers
> - this is what the attached Report (and its annexes) seek to provide.
>
> Many thanks and kind regards,
>
> Stéphane (and Charlotte - presently on leave)
>
>
>
> From:        "Chuck Gomes Consulting" <consult at cgomes.com>
> To:        "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <clindsey at icrc.org>, <
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> Cc:        gnso-secs at icann.org
> Date:        06.08.2017 19:11
> Subject:        Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20
> July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
> Sent by:        gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for this Charlotte.  I appreciate the need for being precise when
> writing legal language but found that I had to read this several times to
> grasp what is said.  It would be helpful for me if your message was briefly
> summarized with a list of the key points made.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@
> icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Charlotte
> Lindsey Curtet
> * Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 4:46 AM
> * To:* gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
> * Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org
> * Subject:* [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
> Dear Thomas, dear James,
> Dear Members of the reconvened Working Group,
>
> (1) Further to the discussions held during the second meeting of the
> reconvened Working group IGO/INGO Protections PDP Working Group held on 20
> July, please find attached a copy of the Non-paper we had submitted to
> ICANN’s Board and to the process in 2013.
> The attached includes a descriptive of the legal protections of the Red
> Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal designations and of the
> names/identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
> organizations under international law and under the domestic laws in force
> in multiple national jurisdictions.
>
> It includes as an annex an outline of relevant extracts from the first
> Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the third Additional Protocol adopted in
> 2005, and a list of national laws in force in different national
> jurisdictions on the use and protection of the emblems and their
> designations  (the list would require now to be updated to include more
> recent national laws/Governmental decrees, as adopted *inter alia* in
> South Sudan, Sweden and Venezuela).
>
> (2) We take note, as underlined during the recent reconvened Working group
> discussions, of the WG’s defined objectives to determine whether the
> current protections accorded to the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations
> and identifiers (as included under Specification 5 of the Model Registry
> Agreement) should be confirmed as permanent.
>
> In line with the recommendations of the NGPC/the Board's Resolutions that
> the GNSO’s 2013 Recommendations be reconciled with the GAC’s consistent
> advice, this would imply that the GNSO’s 2013 recommendations be revised on
> two counts:
>
> - firstly, to extend the protections accorded to the Red Cross, Red
> Crescent and Red Crystal designations (Scope 1 identifiers) to the full
> exact match names of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
> organizations (Scope 2 identifiers); and
> - second, to confirm the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
> designations and identifiers (Scope 1 and Scope 2) *as permanent*.
>
> (3) As recalled during the last reconvened Working Group session and in
> line with the GNSO’s decision to initiate its process for Amendments or
> Modifications of Approved Policies *with regard to Recommendation 5
> Section 3.1 of the 2013 Final Report*, the extension of the protections
> should importantly be made to cover not only the names of the respective *National
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies* (190 in total to date), but also
> the full exact match names of the two international components of the
> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in the six UN languages.
> This is congruent with the definition of Scope 2 identifiers as included in
> the Final Report of the 2013 PDP – page 10.
> This is also confirmed under the Board’s Resolution (2017.03.16.13) and
> the latter's Operative paragraph (1).
>
> Reference is also made in this regard to the GAC’s consistent advice [as
> expressly stipulated in the GAC Communiqués adopted in Singapore (27 March
> 2014), Los Angeles (15 October 2014), Singapore (11 February 2015), and
> confirmed in subsequent advice] that the Red Cross and Red Crescent
> identifiers be afforded permanent protections. We wish to underline in this
> regard that the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross, of
> the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and
> of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement are included under
> Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement and already enjoy temporary
> protections.
>
> (4) With respect to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms (also included under the
> definition of Scope 2 names adopted by the GNSO in 2013), the extension of
> the *permanent* protections is not requested here, and thus in line with
> the GAC’s past advice, as adopted in Durban (18 July 2013), that *“[t]he
> same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out […] for the
> protections of IGO’s be used to also protect the acronyms of the
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC/IFRC) and the International
> Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR)”*. Given
> however the importance of also protecting the acronyms of the ICRC and of
> the IFRC (particularly the ICRC acronym under which the ICRC is very
> commonly known and identified and which forms a part of the ICRC’s
> institutional logo), we would propose that the reconvened WG consider to
> issue also a recommendation in regard to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms in line
> with the GAC’s above-mentioned Durban Communiqué.
>
> (5) Lastly and further to recent exchanges with ICANN Staff, we wish to
> inform the members of the reconvened Working Group that, in line with the
> agreement during the Facilitated discussion held in Copenhagen, we are
> amenable to work further on a revised list of Red Cross and Red Crescent
> identifiers to replace the current list included under Specification 5 –
> this would notably aim to amend the current titles of the two categories of
> Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (as these do not
> offer clarity) and to further harmonize the list of National Red Cross and
> Red Crescent Societies identifiers (and their *limited* and well defined
> variations).
>
> We also wish members of the WG to note, as indicated during the Copenhagen
> discussion, that a new National Society is in the process of formation and
> recognition, namely the “Marshall Islands Red Cross Society” and that its
> name will also soon require to be added to the list.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further
> clarification.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Charlotte
>
>
> Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
> Director
> Communication and Information Management Department
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
> Tel: + 41 22 730 2773 <+41%2022%20730%2027%2073>
> email: clindsey at icrc.org
>
> Annexes:
>
> - ICRC and IFRC Position paper to ICANN's Board, July/August 2013:
>
>
>
> - Extracts from the Government Advisory Committee's Communiqués relevant
> to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and
> identifiers:
>
> ===============================================================================
> The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict
> and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail
> is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential
> and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied
> or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red
> Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this
> e-mail and notify the sender. ==============================
> =================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
> ------------------------------
>
> The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict
> and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org
>
> This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
> Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named
> recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended
> recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender.
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/attachments/20170808/aed8c805/attachment-0001.html>