Re: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

[<Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,
 
Coincidentally, the NCSG was going to propose a motion very similar to
the one Thomas has just proposed. Our proposed motion is the product of
consensus between both constituencies of the NCSG (i.e. NCUC & NPOC). As
I said, it is very similar to Thomas' and so it may well be more
productive if Thomas and we discussed the issue with a view toward
combining or amending his. 
Due to the fact that all motions have to be in by today, however, and
since it will be very difficult for the relevant office-holders from
both NCUC and NPOC to convene to discuss this before COB today, I
thought it best to submit the full text of NCSG's proposed motion for
now (see below). 
 
Thomas, let's find a time to discuss if possible. Thanks!
 
"Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections
for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC)
Drafting Team;

Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were
required on associated policies relating to protections for certain
international organizations at the second level;

Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that
included requests from international governmental organizations
requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the
current and future rounds of the new gTLD program,

And whereas the development of criteria for the grant of protective
rights for such organizations based on standards such as "international
legal Ppersonality" was proposed at the ICANN meeting in San José, Costa
Rica,

Now therefore be it resolved,

The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of
a PDP that covers the following issues:

- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special
protection at the top and second level, including under a "international
legal personality" test;
- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second
level; and
- Whether such policies are within the bylaws and the defined powers of
the GNSO."

Thanks and cheers
Mary

 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 4/4/2012 2:05 PM
Subject: [council] Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection
of names and acronyms of IGOs
Stéphane, all,
please find below a motion that I had already announced in Costa Rica.

Best regards,
Thomas

Motion to Request an Issue Report on the protection of names and
acronyms of IGOs

Whereas the ICANN Board has granted protection for the Red Cross and
the IOC until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global
interest in its resolution of June 20, 2011 (2011.06.20.01);

Whereas a drafting team of the GNSO Council was established to look at
additional top and second level protections for the IOC and the Red
Cross/Red Crescent movement in the current round of new gTLDs in
response to a GAC proposal based on the June 20, 2011 Board resolution;

Whereas the drafting team is limited to reviewing only top and second
level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement;

Whereas the GNSO Council and the GAC were asked in the letter dated
March 11, 2012 by the ICANN Board to provide policy advice in response
to a letter dated December 13, 2011 from intergovernmental Organizations
on the protection of additional International Governmental Organization
(IGO) names and acronyms both on the top and second level;

Whereas it is possible that more organizations might request special
protection both at the top as well as at the second level for the first
and subsequent rounds of applications for generic TLDs.

THEREFORE BE IT:


Resolved, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on protection of
names and acronyms of IGOs at the top and second level for all new
gTLDs.


***
Thomas Rickert, Attorney at Law

Managing Partner, Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
www.anwaelte.de

Director Names & Numbers, eco Association of the German Internet
Industry
www.eco.de