Dear Mary,
 
We hope this message finds you well.
 
(1) We have received a copy of the GNSO Council’s intended letter to ICANN’s Board seeking an update from the Board on next steps in regard to the dual issues of the protections of “Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers” and “International Government organizations acronyms”, and suggesting that both sets of issues be addressed “in tandem”.  We also note that the draft letter refers to the issues of the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names and to IGO acronyms in the singular (“as one”), and thus, in disregard of the distinct legal regimes and policy issues at stake.

We would like herewith to express our deep concern in this regard and to request, in line with the consistent positions and representations made by the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations to the Board and to ICANN constituencies in the last years, including the GNSO, that the protections that are due to the red cross and red crescent designations and names require to be considered in their own right and distinctiveness.

(2) As you will no doubt recall, and as reminded by the ICRC during its meeting with the
GNSO’s leadership members in Marrakesh and in its oral intervention during the GNSO
Council session held on 14 April 2016, the protections due to the red cross and red crescent
designations and names find their source in
-     universally agreed and compulsory norms of international humanitarian law and in   the domestic laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; as well as in
-     the distinct global public interest in ensuring respect and protection for these  designations and names from improper or unauthorised use (including in situations of humanitarian emergencies in which the  Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers are at particular risk of fraudulent use on the Internet).

This makes up a unique and sui generis case for the permanent and unconditional reservation of these designations and names from registration as top and second domain names.

This has been recognized by the Board and the NGPC in particular in its past determinations which have confirmed that the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections as distinct. This also conforms to the GAC’s consistent advice on this matter as outlined in recent GAC Communiqués and that address the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections in stand-alone and separate paragraphs.
 
(3) While the initial GNSO recommendations regarding the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names may have indeed been developed in the context of a broader PDP (“On the protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLD’s”), the question of the Red Cross and Red Crescent reservations have since remained separate from the IGO/INGO issues and must continue to merit a distinct treatment and consideration.

We are hence of the view that any suggestion that the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections could or should be re-coupled, or be addressed “in tandem”, with the protections called for in regard to IGO’s and their acronyms, would represent an undue retreat on ICANN’s most recent determinations, approaches and processes.

We would like to thank the GNSO for its kind attention to the above concerns. We remain  available to support and/or to attend any future consultations in this matter to be held, for instance, during ICANN 57 in Helsinki.

Sincerely yours,

Stéphane

 
Stéphane J. Hankins
Legal adviser
Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement
International Committee of the Red Cross
Direct line: ++0041 22 730 24 19
 
 
 

-----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 23/05/2016 16:31 -----
A : Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC@ICRC
De : Daiana Barbancho Savage/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC
Date : 23/05/2016 14:03
Cc : Charlotte Lindsey Curtet/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC@ICRC
Objet : Letter

(See attached file: docxKk10U26N6N.docx)