Dear all, Below is what the GAC said about IGO/INGO at the same time we were discussing it here.
CHAIR: WE HAVE IGO PROTECTIONS AND RED CROSS, RED CRESCENT PROTECTIONS. YOU SHOULD ALL BY NOW HAVE A HARD COPY OF A LETTER DATED JUNE 16TH THAT WAS SENT BY THE BOARD NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE TO THE GENERIC NAME SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION OUTLINING WHERE THEY BELIEVE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN VIEW EITHER BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE ADVICE WE HAVE GIVEN AND THE GNSO OR BETWEEN THE NGPC AND THE APPROACH THEY'VE BEEN TAKING AND THE GNSO. AND SO THERE ARE TWO POINTS THERE -- PROTECTIONS FOR IGOACRONYMS AND PROTECTIONS FOR NATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES. SO THE BOARD HAS WRITTEN TO THE GNSO ASKING THEM TO CONSIDER THESE ISSUES AND TO SEE WHETHER THERE ARE ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO MAKE IN ORDER TO ALLOW US TO CONCLUDE ON THIS ISSUE AT LEAST FOR THE CURRENT ROUND, IF NOT FOR FUTURE ROUNDS. AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE NOTE OF THIS LATEST STEP AND DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF ANY ACTIONS WE NEED TO TAKE BEYOND MONITORING DEVELOPMENTS WITH THIS. SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD REFERENCE FOR US IN THIS DISCUSSION. TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LATEST. YOU WILL RECALL THAT WITH PROTECTING IGOs, IT WAS REALLY THE ACRONYMS ASPECT RATHER THAN THE NAMES THAT WE FOUND THERE WERE SOME REMAINING ISSUES TO ADDRESS. AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AS THE MAIN FOCUS OF OUR EFFORTS BETWEEN THE GAC WITH THE IGOs AND WITH THE BOARD NEW gTLD PROGRAM COMMITTEE. SO I KNOW THE OECD HAD EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN SPEAKING ON THIS. SO I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU THE FLOOR. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER REQUESTS AT THIS POINT, SO, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, PLEASE.
OECD: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE GAC. AND I THINK THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING WITH THIS. VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR US. AND I KNOW FOR OUR MEMBER GOVERNMENTS AS WELL. REGARDING THE CURRENT SITUATION, WE OBVIOUSLY READ THIS LETTER WITH GREAT INTEREST. WE ARE -- WE WELCOME THIS LETTER TO GREATEST EXTENT IN THAT THE BOARD IS -- OR THE NGPC COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD IS SUGGESTING TO THE GNSO TO SEE IF THEY CAN AMENDMENT THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO COME CLOSER TO A SOLUTION, A SOLUTION WHICH THE NGPC HAS BEEN WORKING ON WHICH WE MUST SAY IS CLOSER TO THE AGAINST RECOMMENDATION THAN TO THE GAC INITIAL RECOMMENDATION. IT IS A CURATIVE MECHANISM AND A NOTIFICATION MECHANISM. THE GAC IN PARTICULAR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIRS AND A SMALL GROUP OF NGOs HAVE MADE SOME IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS AND THE NGPC HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN THAT. SO ON THAT SIDE, WE DO HOPE THAT THE AGAINST SEES GNSO SEES THAT, IN FACT THAT THIS PROPOSAL FOR SECOND LEVEL PROTECTION OF ACRONYMS IN THIS ROUND AND HOPEFULLY AS YOU SAY, WHATEVER WE AGREE ON WE DON'T HAVE TO REOPEN FOR SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS. AND WILL MEET US SOME -- OR THE NGPC SOME WAY TO THAT. THERE IS ONE SENTENCE THAT CONCERNS THE"IGOs GREATLY WHICH IS THAT ON THE SECOND PAGE AT THE TOP, THE NGPC WRITES, " THE NGPC WILL NOT TAKE ANY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE GAC ADVICE AND CURATIVE PROTECTIONS FOR NGOs AND INGOs, PRIOR TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE IGO'S PDP. FOR THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW. AND AS WE SAY, THIS IS NOT THE GAC'S SIZES ON CURE TIV WRITES PROTECTIONS. THIS IS THE COMPROMISE WHICH IS CURATIVE PROTECTIONS RATHER THAN PREVENTIVE PROTECTIONS. THIS IS WHAT THE NGPC HAS PROPOSED. AND IN THEIR PROPOSAL, THEY STATED VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE WILL BE A SAFEGUARD WHICH THE BOARD, THE NGPC WILL GIVE IGOs AND THE PDP, WHICH WILL NOT TAKE ANYTHING AWAY, CAN ONLY GIVE IMPROVEMENT ABOVE THOSE SAFEGUARDS WHICH THE NGPC HAS GIVEN. THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GONE BACK ON THAT COMMITMENT THIS SEEMS TO HAVE GONE BACK ON THAT COMMITMENT HERE AND THE IGOs ARE EXTREMELY CONCERNED P THAT ASPECT. SO WE WOULD LIKE SOME CLARITY, AND IF WE ARE WE ARE READING THIS WRONG, I KNOW THE CHAIR IS FRUSTRATED, THE GAC IS EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED. IGOs ARE EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED. THE GAC HAS GIVEN ITS ADVICE ON PUBLIC-POLICY GROUNDS. THERE IS AN INTEREST TO PROTECTING IGO ACRONYMS. NOW, THIS IS AS FAR AS THE SECOND-LEVEL IS CONCERNED, BUT I WOULD REALLY -- WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO INSIST THAT THE TOP LEVEL NOT BE FORGOTTEN FOR FUTURE ROUNDS. THE GAC ADVICE IS VERY CLEAR AND IS NOT -- OBVIOUSLY NOT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE GNSO HAS PROPOSED, BUT WE DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS, BUT THIS -- WE SHOULD NOT FORGET THAT THERE IS STANDING GAC ADVICE SINCE TORONTO WHICH HAS BEEN CONTINUOUSLY REPEATED REGARDING PROTECTIONS FOR THE NAMES AND THE ACRONYMS AT THE TOP LEVEL AS WELL, WHICH DOES NOT -- THERE IS NOT THE SAME -- THE ISSUES ARE NOT THE SAME FOR THE TOP LEVEL AS FOR THE SECOND LEVEL. AND FINALLY, IF WE MAY ASK SOMETHING OF THE CHAIR AND THE GAC IS TO CLARIFY WHO SHOULD WE BE SPEAKING WITH? BECAUSE THE BOARD DECISION SEEMS TO SAY THAT IT'S THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF ICANN WHO SHOULD BE HOLDING A DIALOGUE ON THE ISSUES WHERE THERE IS NOT CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC, AND WHEREAS IT IS THE NGPC WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED UP TO NOW AND IS WRITING TO THE GNSO. SO SOME CLARITY ON THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, USEFUL FOR ALL ACTORS. AND PLEASE INCLUDE IGOs IN THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THE BOARD DECISION MENTIONS GNSO, GAC, ALAC. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT AN IDENTIFIABLE CONSTITUENCY IN -- IN THE ICANN PROCESSES. WE'RE NOT A GROUP. BUT THIS ISSUE IS OBVIOUSLY OF CONCERN SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. SO FOR THE TWO QUESTIONS, ON THE FIRST ONE, CAN I TURN OVER TO AUSTRALIA REGARDING FUTURE ISSUES OR FUTURE ROUNDS? AUSTRALIA, PLEASE.
AUSTRALIA: THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE IGO COALITION FOR THOSE VERY USEFUL COMMENTS ON THE NGPC'S MOST RECENT RESPONSE. IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION ABOUT FUTURE ROUNDS, I THINK IT WOULD BE -- THIS IS A POTENTIAL -- POTENTIALLY USEFUL ADDITION TO THE FUTURE ROUNDS WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS CURRENTLY LOOKING AT A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, BUT POTENTIALLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDED AS ANOTHER SUBISSUE FOR THAT WORKING GROUP. HOW. I BELIEVE THE SCOPE WAS RECENTLY CLARIFIED AND IT'S BROAD ENOUGH FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. AT THE MOMENT THAT WORKING GROUP IS OPERATING BY HAVING LEADS FOR EACH OF THE SUBISSUES. SO WE HAVE ARGENTINA LEADING ON GEOGRAPHIC NAMES, FOR EXAMPLE. WE COULD LOOK FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS ISSUE WITHIN THAT WORKING GROUP. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THAT, BUT I'D BE OPEN TO IT HAPPENING NOW. I LOOK TO THE CHAIR. JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS BEFORE WE MOVE ON. IN TERMS OF THE ISSUE OF PREVENT PREVENTATIVE MECHANISMS VERSUS CURATIVE MECHANISMS, I UNDERSTAND THE IGO'S CONCERN IN THIS REGARD AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS HAPPENED A LOT BUT THEY HAVE MOVED ON TO RECOMMENDING A CURATIVE RESULT SO THE BUENOS AIRES COMMUNIQUE SPELLS OUT THE PRINCIPLES FOR SUCH AN APPROACH, HAVING A PERMANENT SYSTEM OF NOTIFICATIONS, TIMELINESS FOR ABILITY TO RESPOND, ET CETERA. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT AS A DEVELOPMENT IN THIS PROCESS AS IT HAS MOVED ALONG. AND WE'VE TRIED TO FIND A SORT OF MUTUALLY ACCOMMODATING OR WORKABLE SOLUTION. THE OTHER THING -- I CERTAINLY TAKE THE IGO'S POINT AND AGREE. I THINK THIS LETTER FROM THE NGPC IS VERY WELCOME , AND PERSONALLY I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN A PROCESS LIKE THIS BEFORE, I HAVE NOT SEEN A PROCESS LIKE THIS BEFORE WHERE THE BOARD HAS GONE BACK TO THE GNSO AND ASKED IT TO RECONSIDER RECOMMENDATIONS. I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING VERY USEFUL FOR THE GAC TO LOOK AT. AND POTENTIALLY, IN OUR MEETING WITH THE GNSO OR IN SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE GNSO, TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WE WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT WORK. I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT -- AND WE'VE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS -- IS THAT GETTING THE GAC INVOLVED IN GNSO POLICY PROCESSES EARLY OR MORE EFFECTIVELY CAN LEAD TO BETTER OUTCOME. SO I THINK IF THE GNSO IS TO TAKE THIS UP AND GO BACK AND RECONSIDER ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS, I THINK HAVING THE GAC OR INTERESTED GAC MEMBERS INVOLVED AT A VERY EARLY STAGE COULD POTENTIALLY BE VERY USEFUL. BUT AS I SAY, I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SO I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR US, USEFUL TO EXPLORE IN THE MARGINS OF THIS MEETING AND SEE IF THERE'S A GOOD WAY FOR THE GAC TO BECOME INVOLVED IN THIS. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, AUSTRALIA. OKAY. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL GOOD SUGGESTIONS. TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, I'M JUST REVIEWING THE LETTER, AND YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE CEO REGARDING THIS MATTER. BUT AS I READ THIS, IT'S REALLY THE NGPC THAT'S LEADING AND CONTINUES TO LEAD ON IT. SO, YEAH, IF YOU COULD ELABORATE ON WHAT THE CONCERN WAS.
OECD: THE APRIL DECISION FROM THE BOARD SAID THAT, THAT THEY -- ON THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT -- ON THE RECOMMENDATION, THE GNSO RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WERE NOT ADOPTED BECAUSE THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE GNSO, APPARENTLY THE BOARD ASKS THE PRESIDENT/CEO TO ORGANIZE A DIALOGUE BETWEEN, AND I QUOTE, "GNSO, GAC, AND ALAC." NOT IGOs. SO AS WE HAD UNDERSTOOD UP UNTIL THEN, IT WAS THE NGPC WHO WAS CONDUCTING THE DIALOGUE. SO SOME CLARITY ON THAT. AND IF I COULD JUST VERY BRIEFLY RESPOND TO A COUPLE OF POINTS WHICH AUSTRALIA JUST SAID. IN TERMS OF THE WORKING GROUP ON FUTURE ROUNDS, WE WOULD LIKE SOME MORE INFORMATION; HOWEVER, THERE IS STANDING GAC ADVICE ON THE FUTURE ROUND AND PROTECTION OF ACRONYMS AT THE TOP LEVEL. REGARDING THE CURATIVE RIGHTS. YES, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS -- THE GAC AND IGOs HAVE MADE GREAT CONCESSIONS ON THIS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME CLOSURE TO THIS. THEY'RE CURATIVE RIGHTS; HOWEVER, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE, ACCORDING TO THE BUENOS AIRES COMMUNIQUE, PREVENT HARMS TO IGO ACRONYMS. AND AGAIN, THE DISCUSSION WITH NGPC WAS VERY FRUITFUL. AND IT SEEMS TO BE INTERRUPTED BY THIS LINE THAT I READ FROM THE LETTER. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE CAN LOOK AT ISSUES RELATED TO PROTECTIONS AT THE TOP LEVEL FOR THE NAMES -- IS THAT RIGHT? -- AS PART OF THE FUTURE ISSUES WORKING GROUP? IT'S THE ACRONYMS STILL. OKAY. THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES FOR FUTURE ROUNDS I THINK CAN BE HANDLED AS PART OF THE FUTURE ISSUES WORKING GROUP. AND THEN WE HAVE THINGS TO CLARIFY WITH THE BOARD AND/OR NGPC, AND WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE MEET WITH THEM TO RAISE THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT NEXT STEPS AND HOW IT WILL BE HANDLED AND WHAT PRECISELY THE ROLE OF THE CEO IS IN CONVENING THAT PARTICULAR GROUP AND WHAT THE MEANING OF IT IS RELATIVE TO THIS LETTER. I THOUGHT THE LETTER WAS QUITE STRAIGHTFORWARD, BUT APPARENTLY THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD ISN'T AS CLEAR AS WE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT INITIALLY. AND THEN WE CAN PUT THESE QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD WHEN WE MEET WITH THEM. OKAY. SO LET'S KEEP TRACK OF THOSE. SO NEXT I HAVE THE RED CROSS, AND THEN THE UNITED STATES, AND IRAN. RED CROSS: THANK YOU. SO CHARLOTTE LINDSAY. I'M FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FIRSTLY FOR THE SUPPORT WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE GAC THROUGHOUT FOR THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT REQUESTS. WE KNOW THIS ITEM IS OFTEN ON THE AGENDA, AND WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. WE HOPE THAT THIS ISSUE WILL BE BE ABLE TO BE RESOLVED SATISFACTORILY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US IN TERMS OF READING THE RECENT COMMUNICATIONS IN RELATION TO THIS IS, FIRSTLY, THE POINT COMING OUT OF THE ICANN BOARD'S DECISION TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THESE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE FACILITATED IN TERMS OF WITH THE RELEVANT PARTIES AS WAS OUTLINED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE BOARD FURTHER RESOLVED TO FACILITATE DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE RELEVANT PARTIES, AND WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL TAKE PLACE AND WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF THE GAC IN THAT REGARD IN RELATION TO RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT PROTECTIONS. SECONDLY, WE ALSO WANT TO KNOW HOW THE -- HOW THE RECENT RESOLUTION FROM THE BOARD, HOW IT WILL LOOK AT THE NEXT STEPS WHICH COULD BE UNDERTAKEN, PARTICULARLY BY THE GAC, NORD IN ORDER TO PROMOTE THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTECTIONS THAT WERE CALLED FOR PARTICULARLY AS OUTLINED IN THE SINGAPORE COMMUNIQUE CONFIRMING THE PAST ADVICE FOR PROTECTION OF THE TERMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENT AND THE REQUIRED INCLUSION THEREUNDER OF THE NAMES AND IDENTIFIERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPONENTS OF THE MOVEMENT IN RELEVANT LANGUAGES. SO THAT'S THE NAMES OF THE NATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES, AND ALSO THE NAMES AND ACRONYMS OF THE TWO INTERNATIONAL COMPONENTS, THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS, THE ICRC, AND THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES, THE IFRC. AND LASTLY, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE ELEMENTS OF RISK THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS -- ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, AND THE RISK THAT WOULD OCCUR IF THESE NAMES AND TERMS ARE NOT PERMANENTLY PROTECTED. WE HAVE MANY, MANY INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE FRAUDS COMMITTED WHERE THESE NAMES HAVE -- ONLINE AS WELL AS OFF-LINE WHEN THESE NAMES ARE MISUSED IN RELATION TO DISASTERS, IN RELATION TO TRYING TO RAISE FUNDS. IT IS VERY CLEAR IT'S A NAME WHICH IS HIGHLY TRUSTED AND HIGHLY RECOGNIZED. WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT WE PROTECT IT FULLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW. AND WE REALLY CONTINUE TO ASK FOR THE GAC'S SUPPORT IN THIS REGARD. THANK YOU. CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I HAVE UNITED STATES NEXT. UNITED STATES: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND I'D LIKE TO EXEXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO OUR COLLEAGUES FROM THE IGO COALITION AND THE RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT. I HAVE TO SAY THE UNITED STATES HAS A GREAT DEAL OF SYMPATHY FOR THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED TODAY. I DO, HOWEVER, WOULD LIKE TO REASSURE YOU THAT, OF COURSE, AS OBSERVERS, YOU ARE MEMBERS OF THE GAC AND THE GAC INTENDS TO FULLY STAND BY ITS EXISTING ADVICE. SO IF THAT IS HELPFUL, I'M HAPPY TO OFFER THAT REASSURANCE. I CONCUR WITH AUSTRALIA'S ASSESSMENT THAT THIS LETTER, THE LETTER THAT WE ARE JUST SEEING TODAY, COULD PERHAPS BE THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN AN OVERTURE FROM THE BOARD TO THE GNSO TO -- SORT OF SUGGESTING THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER AN EXISTING POLICY. AND I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY A VERY HELPFUL DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF WE CAN TAKE SOME TIME WHEN WE MEET WITH THE GNSO TO ASK FOR THEIR REACTION. I DO THINK THAT GOOG FORWARD, WE COULD CONSIDER MAKING AN OVERTURE TO THE GNSO OURSELVES THAT THIS CURRENT SITUATION COULD BE A GOOD TEST CASE FOR THE CURRENT WORK THAT IS ACTUALLY UNDER WAY BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE GNSO. IT'S ADMITTEDLY A SMALLISH WORKING GROUP. WE WILL BE GETTING AN UPDATE DURING THIS MEETING. BUT ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FOCUS ON IS FACILITATING EARLY GAC COMMENT ON A GNSO SCOPING OF AN ISSUE. AND SO AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING TO FIND A TEST CASE. THIS MAY WELL BE A TEST CASE. BECAUSE REGRETTABLY, THE GAC'S WORK AND THE GNSO'S WORK ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES HAS BEEN DONE SEPARATELY, QUITE SEPARATELY AND IN SILOS. AND THIS IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY WE NEED TO OVERCOME THOSE PROBLEMS. THIS SHOULD NOT CONTINUE. AND THE ISSUE SHOULD NOT GO ON WITH SEPARATE DELIBERATIONS IN ONE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION AND ONE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO I WOULD WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT US TAKING THIS UP AFFIRMATIVELY WITH THE GNSO, INDICATING QUITE CLEARLY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXCHANGE. WE NEED TO BE A PART OF THEIR DELIBERATION AS TO WHETHER THEY FEEL THE NEED TO ACTUALLY INITIATE YET ANOTHER PDP. SO I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT OUR IGO COLLEAGUES AND RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT OBSERVERS HAVE ALSO BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, UNITED STATES. NEXT I HAVE IRAN, THEN THE U.K. IRAN: THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIRMAN. I THINK WE SHOULD NOT LIMIT OURSELVES TO JUST RAISING THE QUESTION IN THE NEXT ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ENTITIES IN THE ICANN RESPONSIBLE TO THESE MATTERS. WE SHOULD TAKE OR TREAT THE MATTER WITH MORE SERIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION. WE SHOULD WRITE TO THE ICANN BOARD DESCRIBING OR ADDRESSING OUR CONCERNS, IF NOT OUR DISAPPOINTMENT OR FRUSTRATIONS, OF THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK THAT TWO ENTITIES WITHIN THE ICANN WOULD HAVE SOMETIMES DIFFERENT VIEWS, AND THESE DIFFERENT VIEWS CONTINUES FOR UNNECESSARY PERIOD OR UNLIMITED PERIOD, WHICH WOULD NOT GIVE A GOOD MESSAGE TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD. IN PARTICULAR ITEMS OF THE AGENDA WHEN YOU DISCUSS THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF ICANN, THIS ALSO FALLS UNDER THAT ISSUE. DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW BETWEEN TWO ENTITIES IN THE ICANN SHOULD NOT RESULT TO THE FRUSTRATIONS OF THE ENTITIES BEHIND THE ISSUE WHICH IS UNDER DISCUSSIONS. THERE SHOULD BE SOME TIME LIMIT AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME POSITIVE ACTION ON THAT. ONCE AGAIN, WE SHOULD WRITE THEM AND GIVE THEM OUR CONCERNS OR ADDRESS THEM OUR CONCERNS AND ASK IMMEDIATE ACTION WITH A VIEW TO RESOLVE THE MATTER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND POSSIBLY WITH SOME TIME LIMIT. THANK YOU. CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, IRAN. NEXT I HAVE THE U.K., PLEASE. UNITED KINGDOM: YES, THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND I HAVE A LOT OF SYMPATHY WITH THAT VIEW FROM IRAN. IN BOTH THESE CASES, THE GAC HAS GIVEN ADVICE, AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED SUBSEQUENTLY HAS BECOME VERY CONTRACTED AND SEEMLY INDETERMINATE. IT'S NOT REALLY THE WAY THIS WHOLE MODEL OF DISCUSSION AND SUBMISSION OF ADVICE SHOULD WORK. I MEAN, I AGREE, FIRST OF ALL, WITH THE OECD AND THE IGO COALITION THAT THAT LINE ABOUT AWAITING THE CONCLUSION OF A PDP IS VERY ALARMING. I MEAN, THAT COULD LEAD TO A VERY EXTENDED PERIOD OF NOT RESOLVING WHAT HAS BEEN GAC ADVICE. AND IN THE CASE OF THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES, AGAIN WE SEEM TO BE IN A SORT OF VERY INDETERMINATE SITUATION HERE. THE GAC HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR AND FORTHRIGHT IN ITS ADVICE, AND IT'S VERY DISAPPOINTING AND DISTURBING THAT THE GNSO REACTION IN RESPECT TO THE RED CROSS PROTECTION IS TO CONSIDER OR EQUATE NAMES THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER CONVENTION WITH TRADEMARKS AND BRANDS BY REFERRING THEM TO -- BY REFERRING TO TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSES AS THE WAY TO RESOLVE THIS. THAT IS NOT OUR EXPECTATION WHEN WE SUBMITTED THAT GAC ADVICE. THERE SHOULD BE PERMANENT PROTECTION IMPLEMENTED QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY. EQUATING NAMES PROTECTED UNDER CONVENTION WITH A TRADEMARK PROCESS IS, IN PRINCIPLE, UNACCEPTABLE, I THINK. SO WE SHOULD BE VERY STRONG IN OUR REACTION TO THIS CURRENT STATE OF PLAY. IF IT DID LEAD TO SOME MECHANISM INVOLVING THE CLEARINGHOUSE, THAT WILL BE A DRAIN ON RESOURCES FOR THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT SOCIETIES, RESOURCES THAT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO HUMANITARIAN CAUSES. SO THIS IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS WHICH I FIND VERY DISTURBING. SO I REALLY THINK WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER A STRONG MESSAGE IN THE COMMUNIQUE ON THE FAILURE, REALLY, TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE GAC ADVICE WITH PRECISION AND IMMEDIACY. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD AGREE TO TEXT ALONG THOSE LINES IN THE COMMUNIQUE. THANK YOU. CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE SWITZERLAND. SWITZERLAND: SATISFACTORY SOLUTION IN RELATIVELY EASY MANNER. WE EFFECTIVELY BELIEVE THAT IGOs NEED -- REQUIRE A PERMANENT EFFECTIVE PROTECTION AS IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY OTHER COLLEAGUES THAT SPOKE BEFORE ME. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO PRESENT A FIRM MESSAGE FROM THE GAC IN ORDER TO FIND A QUICK SOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE AND TO AVOID MISINTERPRETATIONS, AND ALSO TO SKIP TAKING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER BOTH AT THE FIRST ISSUES THAT ARE -- WHAT YOU CALL IT? NORMALLY DISCUSSED IN THE GAC ITSELF, RATHER THAN IN A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, WE CAN DISCUSS THE ISSUES WITH OUR NORMALLY FACED BY US. FOR EXAMPLE, IN SINGAPORE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING A NAME LIKE .WINE, .VIN, AND SO ON. IF WE HAVE A CLEARINGHOUSE, WE SAY OKAY THERE IS A CLEARINGHOUSE AND WE NEED TO CHANGE THE BYLAWS. WHATEVER. THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS OF THIS. NOW, WHAT ELSE? DO WE HAVE TO SAY A NAME OF TLD IS NOT GIVEN TO A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION? IT IS OWNED BY ICANN AND IT IS ONLY GIVEN TO AN INSTITUTION AND THEY CAN USE IT AS LONG AS ICANN WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT, JUST LIKE (INDISCERNIBLE) IN ITU. NOW THERE ARE OTHER KIND OF ISSUES WE CAN SAY, AND I CHAIR MY THOUGHT WITH OUR FRIEND FROM IRAN AND ENGLAND AND THE U.K. WHERE THERE ARE SOME -- WHAT YOU CALL IT? A LOT OF TIME NEEDED FOR DISCUSSION WITHIN THE GAC AND THE BOARD OF ICANN ITSELF, JUST LIKE NAMES AND SO ON AND AND SO ON. SO IN THIS RESPECT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS MORE OURSELVES AND OF COURSE THE BOARD, AND HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GAC POSITIONS IN THE BOARD OF ICANN, WHAT KIND OF THINGS WE CAN GIVE THE SUPPORT TO THE BOARD OF ICANN TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE -- ALL THE -- ALL THE DISCUSSION IN THE GAC AND AMONG ALL THE MEMBERS CAN BE CLEARLY HEARD AND CONSIDERED BY THE ICANN BOARD. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, INDONESIA. SO I HAVE ONE REQUEST FROM SRI LANKA TO SPEAK AND THEN I WILL CLOSE THE SPEAKING ORDER, SUM UP, AND THEN WE NEED TO MOVE ON THROUGH THE AGENDA. SO SRI LANKA, PLEASE. SRI LANKA: THANK YOU, HEATHER. I'LL BE SHORT AND JUST TO EMPHASIZE THAT I CONCUR WITH ALL OF THE POINTS MADE BY THE PREVIOUS COUNTRY REPRESENTATIVES, BUT EMPHASIZE ON ONE ASPECT THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY MARK FROM U.K. THAT I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR STRONG MESSAGE FROM GAC THROUGH OUR CONSENSUS ADVICE, STATING VERY CLEARLY THAT THOSE NAMES PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO THE LEVEL OF OTHER TRADEMARK BY PUTTING THEM INTO THE CATEGORY OF THOSE THAT CAN BE PUT INTO THE TRADEMARK CLEARINGHOUSE. SO I THINK THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, AND A STRONG MESSAGE SHOULD BE CONVEYED BY GAC IN RELATION TO THE TWO ACRONYMS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING AT THE MOMENT. THANK YOU. CHAIR DRYDEN: THANK YOU, SRI LANKA. OKAY. SO IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS FOR CLARIFICATION TO TAKE UP WITH THE BOARD THIS WEEK ON BOTH THE IGO PROTECTION SIDE OF THINGS AND THE RED CROSS/RED CRESCENT SIDE. AND WE CAN ALSO DISCUSS THIS WHEN WE MEET WITH THE GNSO TO AT LEAST FLAG TO THEM THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE TO US STILL, AND THAT WE ARE READY TO WORK WITH THEM TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AND TRY TO HAVE AS SPEEDY A CONCLUSION AS POSSIBLE ON THESE MATTERS. WE CAN ALSO COMMUNICATE AS A GAC OUR CONCERNS AND REAFFIRM THE ADVICE THAT WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN. CLEARLY THERE IS A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR CONTINUING TO ADVANCE THAT ADVICE AND DRAW ATTENTION TO IT AS WE TRY TO RESOLVE THESE MATTERS WITH THE NGPC AND OTHER PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY. AND WE CAN DO THAT VIA OUR COMMUNIQUE IF NOT, IN FACT, A LETTER. BUT EITHER WAY, I SEE THERE IS CLEARLY AN INTEREST IN REAFFIRMING THE GAC'S VIEWS AND TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE SEEKING AS RAPID A CONCLUSION TO THESE ISSUES AS POSSIBLE. AND HOPEFULLY, THEN WE WILL RECEIVE CONFIRMATION OF THIS PROCESS MOVING ALONG AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT.
*Gabriela Szlak * *Skype:* gabrielaszlak *Twitter: @*GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.