Dear all, Following consultation with James as the GNSO Chair, staff will hold off from sending out ballots for the electronic vote on this motion for at least the next 24 hours. This step is being taken to allow Michele and Rubens, as seconders of the motion, to indicate whether or not they accept the proposed amendment (below) as friendly, and Paul and others to provide follow up comments. Michele and/or Rubens – please note, and thank you. Thanks and cheers Mary From: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 18:56 To: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Re: MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Paul – The process outlined in Section 16 ultimately leaves the decision to the Council on whether/how to amend a previous PDP, taking in to account input from Public Comment and in consultation with the previous PDP working group. But as I noted below, it isn’t our intention to “fix” the PDP’s recommendations with the language in the motion, but instead to give some guidance to the re-convened PDP working group, and for the Public Comment and Council to consider their recommended amendments (if any). I can see your concern is that, if we hold a comment period on the proposed amendment in the motion, while at the same time asking the PDP WG to reconvene and consider this same language, it gives the perception that the PDP WG is simply being asked to rubber stamp the predetermined outcome. And this was not the intention behind including the amendment in the motion. To make this explicitly clear, I’m proposing that we delay the Public Comment period on the proposed motion until –after- the reconvened PDP WG has delivered their recommendations. This would change Resolved #2 to read: 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the recommendations of the reconvened PDP Working Group, and its proposed amendment(s) to Recommendation 5, if any, for public comment for a period of 30 days following the conclusion of the PDP WG. Please indicate whether this address your/IPC concerns, and I’ll ask that the Seconders consider this amendment as Friendly. Thank you, J. From: icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 16:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] [Ext] Re: MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Thanks Mary. James, the concerns we are hearing from our folks deal with whether or not the work of the revived WG will be taken seriously. The motion seems to indicate that the public comment period for the work of the Small Group will run simultaneously with the work of the revived WG. What is the WG comes to conclusions which are not consistent with the Small Group’s conclusions? Will the WG’s conclusions be given full weight? Is there any mechanism for the work of the revived WG to be published for comment? If not, why would revived WG members cooperate if they are just going to be expected to be a rubber stamp? Best, Paul From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 5:52 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>; Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [Ext] Re: MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Hello everyone – staff confirms James’ understanding of when and how the limited set of variations of the 190 Red Cross National Society names. The desire to have a single, limited list of specific variants of those 190 names is hopefully reflected in the language of the Board request as well as the current GNSO Council motion. Regarding the number of Red Cross National Societies: The number 189 was used in the Whereas clauses of the motion because there were 189 such societies at the time. The 190th Red Cross National Society (Tuvalu) only became part of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement in December 2015. In this regard, Councilors may find it helpful to know that stringent criteria apply to the formation and recognition of a Red Cross National Society. For example, it can only be formed in a State that is party to the Geneva Conventions (currently, 196), and it must be formally recognized by the International Committee of the Red Cross in order to become a component of the Movement. Perhaps one way to avoid confusion is to use the phrase “then-189” in the Whereas clauses and “now-190” in the Resolved portion? On the motion: As James noted, this motion covers the kick-off of the potential amendment process. At the end of the consultations with the reconvened PDP Working Group and following review of the public comments received, the Council will still have to vote on whether to adopt the proposed amendment – and that motion can carry only by Supermajority vote. I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 11:30 To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Hello Rafik. I’ll try to address your questions below, but hoping Staff (Mary) will correct me if I get something wrong. A tighter definition for “limited set of variations” will be part of the work of the amendment (if any) resulting from the reconstituted PDP WG. But speaking generally, we noted that some groups had a formal name that was significant different than the name that it used commonly online For example, a national organization might be formally recognized as “The Red Cross of Canada” but was more commonly known as “Canadian Red Cross.” (example only, I have no idea if this organization fits the problem statement). The idea is that definitive articles and prepositions like “The” or “of” may or may not be included in the formal name, or dropped from the common name. Note that this is different than language variations / translations, and is significantly less than what the GAC/ICRC was requesting (which was a much larger list of variants and all permutations). As for the shift in numbers: The original PDP was focused on 189 organizations, but we were informed in Copenhagen that a new org was recently recognized, bringing the current number to 190. I agree that we should standardize all language on this latter figure. Good catch. And finally, a note for all Councilors: As you discuss this motion amongst your SG/C, please remind them that all we are considering is a motion that initiates a process, and that this process includes additional deliberations of the PDP WG, a Public Comment period, and a final Council vote on any resulting recommendations, assuming they differ from the original PDP conclusions. It is therefore not necessary (and perhaps not appropriate) to try and “fix” these concerns in the motion itself. But instead, the motion should launch the process, and the process can address the more substantive questions & concerns. In short, let’s have some confidence that the Working Group will conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of the issues, and take every opportunity to course-correct them if they do not. I hope this is helpful. Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 19:51 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Hi James, quick question with regard to Resolved.1.b which mentions "a defined limited set of variations of these names" how and who will decide for those variations? btw I just noticed that in the whereas we have "189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies," and in resolved "190 Red Cross National Societies", shouldn't be the same number (the latter is missing "Red Crescent" mention, a matter of consistency within the motion)? Best, Rafik 2017-04-26 7:04 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>: Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find an amended version of the Motion to Initiate Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names that was discussed during our last meeting. Recall that, during our last GNSO Council call on 20 April, the Council agreed to defer this Motion to an electronic vote, in order to allow for certain updates to be made to the text of the motion. Also note that the Council agreed to proceed with an electronic vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. The updated language of the motion has been reviewed and approved by me as its proposer, and Michele and Rubens as its seconders. It includes some minor clarifications received as feedback from the ICRC representatives, but does not include any items that materially changed the scope of the affected strings, or any other items that were not discussed previously in Copenhagen. This email will also serve as notice that, as Council Chair, I am hereby formally providing all Councilors with the requisite minimum 7 days’ advance notice of the electronic vote, in accordance with Section 4.10.2.d. of the GNSO Operating Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_op-2Dprocedures-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=wPtw1HeBLN2eKS21j8Fsyoh4pvy4CiM9IxdNp04fDIw&e=>. The 4-day voting period will begin at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 2 May 2017 and close at 23:59 UTC on Saturday 6 May 2017. (Please be reminded that the GNSO Operating Procedures require that electronic voting be an open vote, and its outcome be published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping.) Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair _______________________ Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names - Deferred to electronic vote Submitted by: James Bladel Seconded: Rubens Kuhl, Michele Neylon WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_igo-2Dingo-2Dfinal-2D10nov13-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=Cml0jxeAMadrIuyUoXnD8rZoydzT0q9ncW53Cdg2De8&e=>, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_igo-2Dingo-2Dfinal-2Dminority-2Dpositions-2D10nov13-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=7KPbc8ahszQSX1ofINAJGQCOH3ywHNFhEeNTNm7Lwvg&e=>); WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions-2320131120-2D2-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=ON7unXKnJY1Roxn6t6qDWJ-t3E6VEwhtj5bNG0WP2aI&e=>) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_council-2Dboard-2Digo-2Dingo-2D23jan14-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=Ez7si5sAY1RxxvdIGxC7JZeHh0p-_NdM2-AGj8ngCqA&e=>); WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal”, and “Red Lion & Sun” (referred to as “Scope 1 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_groups_board_documents_resolutions-2D30apr14-2Den.htm-232.a-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=YxWEY57_ncFoCfyfp3I26cVlHiZ_8kr69b3lp5h_KoY&e=>); WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as “Scope 2 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the “Scope 2 Identifiers” of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement’s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC’s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Lion and Sun”, and “Red Crystal” under international treaty law and under multiple national laws; (3) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf[ifrc.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ifrc.org_Docs_ExcelExport_NS-5FDirectory.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=Td5iZVbd1FnS9ab6kEpjl6hNTtQy-k_Rv_d81Y9axDM&e=> ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1397225538000&api=v2[gacweb.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gacweb.icann.org_download_attachments_28278854_Final-2520Communique-2520-2D-2520Singapore-25202014.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1397225538000-26api-3Dv2-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=YLIGd_sYpFS5pAt1ySOVmiQ6XYnEk_MbwrgeV5Z2zWk&e=>); WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D2-2Dpdp-2Dmanual-2D01sep16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=mCZsnagZDKt9mWb3b8VoGxEn9WcP7Mkh9IFuAQXstjc&s=OBGVBM-ogAqV-OajLukM0eLcRd0lQp3ITPFLTpcIFUw&e=>), to consider amending the GNSO’s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council’s consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice: RESOLVED, 1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: (a) The full names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level; (b) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and (c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC’s public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of 30 days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group. 3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.