[council] Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC

[Zahid Jamil <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

many thanks.  am going over this.  very helpful.



Best regards, 

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com

Notice / Disclaimer
This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are the 
intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind whatsoever 
of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by 
electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some other use 
of this communication) without prior written permission and consent of Jamil & 
Jamil is prohibited.

Sent from my iPad

On 11 Mar 2012, at 11:12, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm sure  the RCRC representatives in the group will answer.  In the 
> meantime, this might be helpful with regard to the Red Crystal (from 
> http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/emblem-history.htm):
> 
> 2005
> 
> In December 2005 during the Diplomatic Conference in Geneva, the States 
> adopted Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, creating an 
> additional emblem alongside the red cross and red crescent. The new emblem - 
> known as the red crystal - resolves several issues that the Movement has 
> faced over the years, including:
> 
> the possibility for countries unwilling to adopt the red cross or the red 
> crescent to join the Movement as full members by using the red crystal;
> 
> the possibility of using the red cross and the red crescent together.
> 
> 2006
> 
> In June 2006, an International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> met in Geneva to amend the statutes of the Movement to take into account the 
> creation of the new emblem.
> 
> 2007
> 
> On 14 January 2007, the Third Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva 
> Conventions entered into force (six months after the two first countries 
> ratified it). This completes the process of establishing an additional emblem 
> for use by Governments and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> Movement.
> 
> Also, it is my understanding that the Red Lion and Sun is a recognized symbol 
> of the RCRC societies in the Geneva Convention and that this was reaffirmed 
> in the 2005 Protocol III mentioned above.
> 
> Greg Shatan
> 
> Gregory S. Shatan 
> Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
> IP | Technology | Media 
> ReedSmithLLP 
> The business of relationships
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 | Phone
> 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> 212.521.5450 | Fax
> gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> www.reedsmith.com
> 
> m: Zahid Jamil [mailto:zahid@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:54 PM
> To: Shatan, Gregory S.
> Cc: Winterfeldt, Brian; J. Scott Evans; Neuman, Jeff; Konstantinos Komaitis; 
> Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>; 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
> 
> Hi everyone just wanted to repeat the qs I asked at the council yesterday 
> regarding Red Cross extensions that include Red Crystal and Red Lion and Sun 
> and phrases wrt these terms.  Wanted see if I could more info on that...basis 
> and protections of the phrases etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards, 
> 
> Zahid Jamil
> Barrister-at-law
> Jamil & Jamil
> Barristers-at-law
> 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
> Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
> Cell: +923008238230
> Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
> Fax: +92 21 5655026
> www.jamilandjamil.com
> 
> Notice / Disclaimer
> This message contains confidential information and its contents are being 
> communicated only for the intended recipients . If you are not the intended 
> recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please 
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this message by 
> mistake and delete it from your system. The contents above may contain/are 
> the intellectual property of Jamil & Jamil, Barristers-at-Law, and constitute 
> privileged information protected by attorney client privilege. The 
> reproduction, publication, use, amendment, modification of any kind 
> whatsoever of any part or parts (including photocopying or storing it in any 
> medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally or some 
> other use of this communication) without prior written permission and consent 
> of Jamil & Jamil is prohibited.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 11 Mar 2012, at 10:50, "Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> The fact that the GAC may not have full consensus should not be surprising.  
>> It would probably be more surprising if they did -- on this or any other 
>> issue.
>>  
>> As for the OECD, I think their letter was based largely on a set of false 
>> premises and a lack of understanding of the rationale for setting the IOC 
>> and RCRC apart.  I'm sure this was not intentional, but it does discount the 
>> substance of their concerns.
>>  
>> In a sense, I am sympathetic with their desire to bootstrap IGOs onto the 
>> proposed protection for the IOC/RCRC.  We know that they would like similar 
>> protections.  It's not surprising that they would try to make an argument 
>> that they are just like or better than the IOC/RCRC.  The fact that they 
>> could not come up with a high quality argument is a sign that it will not be 
>> so easy to argue convincingly that IGO's are the same as the IOC/RCRC and 
>> thus entitled to the same protection.  "Slippery slope" arguments like those 
>> made below only work when distinctions are difficult to draw between those 
>> included and those excluded.  Where there are clear distinctions, as there 
>> are here, a slippery slope argument really doesn't hold water, and can even 
>> tend to be a "scare tactic."  For example, one of the potential Republican 
>> nominees for US President, Rick Santorum, has used such specious slippery 
>> slope arguments in attempts to support his opposition to gay sex and 
>> marriage:
>> "[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would 
>> consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . 
>> if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex 
>> within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to 
>> polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery." -- 
>> Rick Santorum on gay sex, AP interview
>> 
>> "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge 
>> included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you 
>> know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one 
>> thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the 
>> quality." -- Rick Santorum, AP interview
>> 
>> Thus, I would tend to discard the slippery slope argument that if IOC and 
>> RCRC opens the door to every other group that would like the same 
>> protections, and that the only way to deal with future petitioners is to bar 
>> the door to the IOC and RCRC.
>>  
>> Thank you.
>>  
>> Greg Shatan 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Winterfeldt, Brian [mailto:bwinterfeldt@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:55 AM
>> To: 'J. Scott Evans'; Neuman, Jeff
>> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Shatan, 
>> Gregory S.; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> I support Jeff as well.  I think the path forward should not change unless 
>> there is a different directive given by the GAC.
>>  
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Brian
>>  
>> Brian J. Winterfeldt, Esq.
>> Steptoe & Johnson LLP
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans
>> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:34 AM
>> To: Neuman, Jeff
>> Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Gomes, Chuck; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory 
>> Shatan; gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>>  
>>  
>> Dear All,
>>  
>> I completely agree with Jeff.   Our job at this point is to stat the course. 
>>  The issues raised by OECD are for the GAC to debate and come to consensus 
>> and, even then, we could conclude that NGO protection is unwarranted.
>>  
>> J. Scott
>>  
>> Sent from my iPad
>>  
>> On Mar 11, 2012, at 3:06 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  
>> >
>> > Konstantinos,
>> >
>> > The correspondence yesterday was the same correspondence we have had for 
>> > months.  Lets not jump to any conclusions because of the statements of a 
>> > VERY small minority of GAC members.  Remember, the GAC cannot change    
>> > course without a consensus of the GAC.  If the Chair, the US, the EU and 
>> > others object to changing course within the GAC, then the GAC cannot by 
>> > its very definition of consensus change course.
>> >
>> > Lets not make more of this issue than it is at this point.  Plus, 
>> > remember, if the GAC were to change course, we could always say no.  And 
>> > yes, there is a rationale to treat the IOC and Red Cross differently than 
>> > the other OECD organizations (according to the GAC).  The GAC letter 
>> > explained that and it was reiterated by Greg in his insightful e-mail.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> >
>> >
>> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>> > use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>> > privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>> > received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>> > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
>> > have    received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 
>> > and delete the original message.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 8:27 AM
>> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Neuman, Jeff; Wolfgang Kleinwächter; Gregory Shatan; 
>> > gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx; 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>> >
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> > I am speaking without being present in yesterday's meeting so I can only 
>> > comment on what I am reading from the email thread. Although I do 
>> > appreciate the argument that the official GAC position has not changed 
>> > (meaning there is not a follow-up 'official' letter from Heather asking 
>> > for a change of course) the fact that we heard various GAC members 
>> > expressing reservations and the potential implications of such protections 
>> > should certainly be taken on board. This is significant as it manifests 
>> > that the GAC might not be speaking as one voice in this issue; at the very 
>> > minimum, these are new considerations that the DT should take on board.
>> >
>> > At the same time, we certainly cannot underestimate the letter that came 
>> > from the OECD. What appeared to be just a possibility, it now appears that 
>> > it is very likely that once the protections for these two orgs are set, 
>> > more will come and use it as a precedent to get the same amount of 
>> > protection. and, one could easily argue that there is potentially a more 
>> > valid claim for these orgs to have their names protected than the IOC or 
>> > the Red Cross. Are we really suggesting here that the work of the IOC, for 
>> > instance, is more important or valuable than that of UNESCO or WIPO?
>> >
>> > I am quite surprised with the insistence to approach this issue the same 
>> > way we have been approaching it, even in light of these new developments, 
>> > which I believe are significant.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Konstantinos
>> >
>> > From: Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> > Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:54:34 +0000
>> > To: Jeff Neuman <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>, 
>> > Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
>> > <wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>,
>> >  Gregory Shatan <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
>> > "gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
>> > <gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
>> > "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'" 
>> > <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>> > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>> >
>> >
>> > It seems to me that we would need another letter from Heather requesting a 
>> > change of direction before we would consider changing course.  We have 
>> > based our work from the letter sent us stating the GAC request so until 
>> > she as chair states that the GAC has changed their request, we should only 
>> > rely on the official request we have.  On a side note, I would be very 
>> > bothered if the GAC changed their request significantly after we had gone 
>> > to all the effort we have to be responsive to their request and would like 
>> > to think they wouldn't do that.
>> >
>> > Chuck
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
>> > [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of 
>> > Neuman, Jeff
>> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:36 AM
>> > To: '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'; 'Shatan, Gregory S.'; 'gnso-iocrc- 
>> > dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dt@xxxxxxxxx>'; 
>> > 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'
>> > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC I do not think that 
>> > this is a wise way forward.  We cannot allow what a very few members of 
>> > the GAC say during an open meeting to detract from our overall position 
>> > and recommendations.  I got a full briefing on the GAC discussion 
>> > yesterday and do not believe we need to change course.
>> > We should only change our course if during today's discussion between the 
>> > GAC and GNSO necessitate the need to do so.  It is really not fair for us 
>> > to base our actions on what a very small minority of the GAC members 
>> > state.  It would be like another group changing their course on what only 
>> > a few few Councilors state.  GAC members, like Councilors, are diverse.  
>> > Simply because a small percentage of Councilors feel one way and express 
>> > their views, that may not impact the view of the COuncil as a whole.
>> > Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>> >  -----Original Message-----
>> > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
>> > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 05:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
>> > To: Shatan, Gregory S.; Neuman, Jeff; 
>> > gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>;
>> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Subject: AW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Session on IOC/RC
>> > Greogry:
>> > I hope that the OECD and other intergovernmental organizations can 
>> > understand the accurate picture of the "criteria" we considered and 
>> > reconsider the statements below.  While we should welcome their input, a 
>> > discussion that is based on a mischaracterization is only going to be a 
>> > dead end.
>> > Wolfgang:
>> > This is the point. We "hope" that the OECD and other IGOs will understand. 
>> > What happens if they don`t? In yesterdays GAC meeting (I was there) it 
>> > became clear that there is no consensus among the GAC members. While Susan 
>> > and Marc defended the position they gave us in the joint meeting, other 
>> > GAC members introduced a broader view and disagreed partly with the US and 
>> > the UK. The European Commission  was outspoken in calling similar rights 
>> > for IGOs. I respect when Susan and Marc argue, our governments are members 
>> > of those organisations and the UK and the US government will not support 
>> > any attempt by an IGO to call for specific rights to have the name 
>> > protected in all variations (as the "four" red organisations have done 
>> > this now with 100+ words and combination of words) But what will happen if 
>> > the UK and the US do not have a majority in this IGO? My warning yesterday 
>> > was that I see a risk that we are pulled into an endless debate over who 
>> > is in a "unique position" and gets sp!
>> ec!
>> >  ial rights and who is not. Chuck yesterday already recognized that there 
>> > "could" be also a third organisaiton similar to the IOC and IRC.
>> > And what happens if there "could" be first five organisations arguing that 
>> > they are "unique" and than 50?
>> > To avoid this and to react in a constructive way to the GAC/Board letters 
>> > my proposal is to have very general language to strengthen the protection 
>> > of names of such organisations (as IOC and IGOs) but not to mention any 
>> > single organisation by name. BTW, the existing mechanisms for the 
>> > protection of those names which are already in the guidebook (as early 
>> > warning and others), are in my eyes sufficient enough to prevent any 
>> > misuse by third parties. I do not believe that a cybersquatter will risk 
>> > 200.000.00 USD to start a battle with the IOC or the IRC etc. And if the 
>> > International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO would go for .ioc they 
>> > would probably consult in advance with the Olympic Committee (the other 
>> > IOC is an intergovernmental treaty organisation). So it seems to me that 
>> > we are in a rather theoretical debate. Lets be pragmatic and say, this is 
>> > what we do for the first phase. We will review this in the light of 
>> > experiences with the first phase and will come back with!
>>   a!
>> >  dditional language (if the existing dispute resolution mechnisms - which 
>> > has not yet been tested - demonstrate too much weaknesses). And BTW this 
>> > is only for the Top Level. The second level is a different issue and we 
>> > will come back to the second level (where is no urgency) later.
>> > To be consistent with our position so far we can argue that yesterdays 
>> > discussion within the GAC has triggered a debate within the GNSO to 
>> > rethink its approach. We have in the previous months trusted UK and US and 
>> > followed the GAC letter but we learned yesterday that there is no real 
>> > consensus among the GAC members themselves which affects obviously also 
>> > our approach. And we should not underestimate the OECD argument.
>> > And even more if you go to the letter Steve Crocker has written to the
>> > 49 member states of the African Union and read the arguments of Steve, why 
>> > he rejects a special proteciton of "africa" in its variations, than we 
>> > should try to be also consistent with positions taken by the chair of the 
>> > board. As an African Union member state  I would raise the issue why a 
>> > non-governmental Committee gets special rights and why ICANN rejects this 
>> > to the lagrest intergovenrmental body in Africa? Again whe should avoid to 
>> > become be pulled into such an endless chain of controver!
>> >  sial discussions.
>> > Thank you.
>> > Wolfgang
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> * * *
>>  
>> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
>> well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on 
>> notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then 
>> delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for 
>> any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for 
>> your cooperation.
>> * * *
>> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you 
>> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice 
>> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended 
>> or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding 
>> penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local 
>> provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 
>> tax-related matters addressed herein.
>> Disclaimer Version RS.US.1.01.03
>> pdc1
>