I admit that I have not or properly read or digested this but, Id like to tease apart two components of this issue if possible: 1. The role of the GAC relative to the role of the GNSO in ICANN 2. The belief that there is some form of international law / treaty / convention that is greater that the GAC / GNSO or ICANN in this specific case. Jonathan From: David Cake [mailto:dave@difference.com.au] Sent: 26 June 2014 09:24 To: Thomas Rickert Cc: <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: [council] IGO/RCRC related excerpt from GAC communequé Yes, it is extremely problematic IMO. For one, there is clearly an understanding from the GAC that: - GAC advice is equivalent to policy. The phrase 'should not be subjected to, or conditioned upon, a policy development process' implies that the GAC thinks one sentence of advice constitutes policy. - and that the GNSO PDP constitutes an attempt to develop competing policy, rather than a process by which GAC advice is turned into implementable policy. I would also add that, as the WG PDP charter explicitly leaves open the option that the existing curative mechanisms may not be adequate, item I. is both uninformed and pointless. Basically, I'm very disappointed, and angry as hell. We need to respond to this as a council. And I am not inclined to be overly polite - this demonstrates a very basic misunderstanding of not just the GNSO, but the entire ICANN policy process. Regards David On 26 Jun 2014, at 9:05 am, Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote: 5. Protection of Inter-Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore Communiqués regarding protection for IGO names and acronyms at the top and second levels, as implementation of such protection is in the public interest given that IGOs, as created by governments under international law, are objectively different rights holders; notes the NGPCs letter of 16 June 2014 to the GNSO concerning further steps under the GNSO Policy Development Process while expressing concerns that the process of implementing GAC advice has been so protracted; welcomes the NGPC's assurance that interim protections remain in place pending any such process; and confirms its willingness to work with the GNSO on outcomes that meet the GACs concerns. 6. Protection of Red Cross / Red Crescent Names The GAC refers to its previous advice to the Board to protect permanently the terms and names associated with the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including those relating to the189 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and recalls that the protections afforded to the Red Cross and Red Cross designations and names stem from universally agreed norms of international law and from the national legislation in force in multiple jurisdictions. Accordingly, a. The GAC now advises, that: I. the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be equated with trademarks or trade names and that their protection could not therefore be adequately treated or addressed under ICANN's curative mechanisms for trademark protection; II. the protections due to the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be subjected to, or conditioned upon, a policy development process; III. the permanent protection of these terms and names should be confirmed and implemented as a matter of priority, including in particular the names of the international and national Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.