Stephane, I would support a fact-based letter from the drafting team that establishes the Council's commitment and expectations. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Thu, August 09, 2012 7:15 am To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> Cc: Mason Cole <mcole@nameking.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Jeff, that is very helpful. I wonder if we, as a Council, could ask the DT to draft a communication letter to the GNSO community, as you suggest? What do people think about this? Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 9 août 2012 à 04:29, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us> a écrit : Thanks Mason, Stephane and John. As the chair of the Drafting Team, I do not believe that this letter changes any of the work underway with the drafting team other than to give us further resolve to provide a clear response to the GAC proposal (from last September) ASAP, whether that response is to maintain the status quo or provide additional protections or somewhere in between. With respect to circumventing the GNSO, this has also been a concern of mine and I do believe a response to the IGO letter is warranted to send a clear message that WE, the GNSO community, are tasked with determining gTLD policies through the multi-stakeholder processes. Not the Board, but the community. To that end, I was very comforted by the recent Progress Report issues by the new gTLD committee of the board, http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/report-03aug12-en.pdf, which states with respect to being asked for action on the IOC/RCRC issue: “Review of this material indicates that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues in the hands of ICANN’s policy--‐making bodies. This was the recommendation of the Board in its Singapore resolution when considering protections for the IOC and Red Cross. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in the GNSO. The IOC and Red Cross are addressing their comments to the GNSO. The GNSO is properly considering whether to do additional work on these issues.” The same rationale holds true with respect to the IGOs and should be repeated back to the IGOs in our response letter. I believe it is a little premature to provide any response to the GAC on the issue of their consideration of the IGO issue. I do not read their latest communiqué as a change, but rather just a politically correct statement saying that they are considering the issue (much like we may likely be doing once the final issue report is released). The GAC has every right to consider the issue and provide advice to the Board. Hopefully the Board will repeat the above mantra and send that advice back down to the GNSO for its consideration prior to taking any action. To do otherwise at this point would go against the latest new gTLD Progress Report. Hope that helps. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mason Cole Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:00 PM To: john@crediblecontext.com; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Please excuse my late reply on this as I'm just back from a holiday which had me out of e-mail reach for an extended period. Allow me to make note of two communications on the IGO matter. (There were previous communications on IGO protection, dating back to December 2011, but I don't believe they were sent by / addressed to a UN agency, as are these, but by a collection of IGO legal counsel): First, the GAC's letter to the Board of 12 April 2012, including: "Firstly, the GAC reaffirms previous advice that the IOC and Red Cross and Red Crescent should be protected at the top and second levels, given that these organizations enjoy protection at both the international level through international treaties (e.g. the Nairobi Treaty and the Geneva Conventions) and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions. The GAC considers the existence of such two--tiered protection as creating the criteria relevant to determining whether any other entities should be afforded comparable enhanced protection. The GAC has considered the Board’s request for policy advice on the expansion of protections to include IGOs and advises that in the event that additional IGOs are found to meet the above criteria, this would be a consideration in the formulation of GAC advice for IGO protections in future rounds, as well as consideration of protections for IGOs, more generally. Therefore, the GAC advises that no additional protections should be afforded to IGOs, beyond the current protections found in the Applicant Guidebook, for the current round." Second, the GAC's Prague communique: "Mindful of its previous GAC advice to the Board on protection of names and acronyms of international organisations enjoying protection at both the international level through international treaties and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions, such as Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, and recognizing the importance of assuring equal treatment of qualifying international organisations under the same criteria, the GAC is carefully considering the issue, with a view to providing further advice to the Board at a time suitable to the GNSO consideration of this issues (sic) expected in July." Perhaps I'm making incorrect inferences, but while a) the April letter is very clear that the GAC advises against additional protection, and b) I believe the council received some level of assurance that the IOC/RC request was unique thanks to their particular status under international law, the communique seems to suggest IGOs could rise to equal status with the IOC and RC. Perhaps the GAC is preparing to reverse its previous advice. With regard to the content of the issue -- the protection of IGO names -- I believe we have only the April advice of the GAC on which to rely, with a later notification in its communique that it is again considering the protection issue. With regard to the process that applies to the issue -- how to go about achieving protection through policy, if warranted -- I agree with John that we have plenty of heat, and some light would be more useful. I understand the UN is frustrated by perceived delay. I also understand very clearly not everyone sees the rationale behind ICANN policymaking procedures and the practical necessity of relying on them and not freelancing policy. To Stephane's question, I agree a reply could be useful (perhaps including the correspondence between IGO legal counsel and staff earlier this year). Further informing that reply might be a better understanding of what change, if any, the GAC may make to its April advice, and a review of the board's rationale for voting down the GNSO's recommendation to approve IOC/RC protection. Finally, I too am interested in Jeff's input as chair of the DT. Mason -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org on behalf of john@crediblecontext.com Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 8:53 AM To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Stephane, Circumventing the process was very much on the mind of the Council in Costa Rica, the meeting at which the matter of IGO protections was first put front-and-center. Our response then should inform our actions now. Recall that on March 26 went sent a letter to Board Chair Steve Crocker and then-CEO Rod Beckstrom committing to the the organization's principles. The UN has an advocate at ICANN in the GAC. GAC has the responsibility to offer advice to the Board. If that advice affects policy, the Board then forwards to the Council. Has the Board gotten such advice? Has the Board engaged the Council? With this much heat, I am surprised there has not be more light. As a Council member, I want us to do what we can, where we can, when we can. No less, no more. Cheers, John Berard Founder Credible Context 58 West Portal Avenue, #291 San Francisco, CA 94127 m: 415.845.4388 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Councillors, Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD programme. As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might be desirable at this time, rather than no response. As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN. As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Registry Relations and Strategy Director Group NBT Début du message réexpédié :
De : Alina Syunkova <alina.syunkova@icann.org> Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden@ic.gc.ca>, "stephane.vangelder@indom.com" <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Cc : Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder@icann.org>
Dear Heather and Stephane,
Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you, -- Alina Syunkova
Board Support Coordinator ICANN Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972 Skype: alina.syunkova.icann 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536