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

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We should discuss and conclude this issue during Fridays call.

 

Osvaldo ? If you wish Brenda to show any documents on the adobe, please
supply them to her.

Thanks

Tony

 

From: owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ispcp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Novoa, Osvaldo
Sent: 30 October 2014 15:55
To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ispcp] RV: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into
this process (as opposed to IGO)

 

Dear All,

I am participating in the Working Group that is revising the policies
approved on the protections for IGO and INGOs.

I put forward the proposition to not consider the INGOs in this revision,
except the Red Cross, since we had considered them in the first WG and the
GAC request, which was the reason for this new WG, was with respect to the
IGOs and the Red Cross.  A significant number of the WG members supported
this idea.

I would like to hear from you in order to be able to present the position of
our constituency.  Mary Wong's mail is quite clear on what should be
decided.

Thank you and best regards,

Osvaldo

 

 

Osvaldo Novoa

Subgerente General

Antel

Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22

Montevideo, 11800

Uruguay

 

Tel.  +598 2928 6400

Fax. +598 2928 6401

 

 

 

  _____  

De: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Mary Wong
Enviado el: Miércoles, 29 de Octubre de 2014 19:41
CC: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this
process (as opposed to IGO)

Dear all,

 

As noted on the WG call today, the consideration of INGO identifiers for
additional/amended curative rights protection was supported by multiple GNSO
constituencies during the prior PDP Working Group consensus process. As
George noted in his original email (below), the primary rationale seems to
have been that put forward by an NCSG representative; in some constituencies
such support also saw some opposition (but not sufficient to overturn the
final consensus conclusion). 

 

As such, staff recommends that Stakeholder Group and Constituency
representatives on this WG whose respective groups supported the inclusion
and equivalent treatment of INGOs as for IGOs check back with those groups
on the emerging consensus within this WG that INGOs be dropped from further
consideration in this PDP. Please circulate your groups? respective
agreement or disagreement via email as soon as possible so that this WG can
finalize its consideration of this question.

 

In relation to the Red Cross movement, staff recommends that this WG
consider whether, in light of their protection under international treaties
and multiple national laws, they ? and for the same reason the International
Olympic Committee ? can be considered separately from the other INGOs who do
not have the same extent of legal protections (as noted several times by the
GAC). 

 

To assist your review of this last point as well as for your convenient
reference, staff has compiled the attached document which has the language
excerpts from recent, relevant GAC Communiques that relate to IGO and Red
Cross curative rights protections.

 

Thanks and cheers

Mary

 

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx

 

 

 

 

 

From: David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 3:07 AM
To: "petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] The origins of how INGOs got into this
process (as opposed to IGO)

 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Cake
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:27 PM
To: Jim Bikoff
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Kathryn Kleiman [mailto:kleiman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 11:43 AM
To: Jim Bikoff; Paul Keating
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:12 PM
To: Paul Keating
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxx
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@xxxxxxxxx
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.