Dear Councilors, With Steve Chan’s invaluable assistance, the Decision Tree referenced in my previous email has now been updated to include information about Board-GAC processes if the Board chooses to reject GAC advice. Please refer to the attached updated document for more information. Staff has also updated the Comparison Table that was circulated before the Helsinki ICANN56 meeting showing the differences between GAC advice, adopted GNSO policy, and temporary Board-directed protections – the attached update is an additional column showing GNSO actions going forward on the topic of IGO and Red Cross protections. Finally, in addition to the link to the recording of the Board-GAC-GNSO representatives’ call yesterday that James sent (below), the transcript of the call is now available and is also attached for your reference. Please let us know if you have any questions, comments or follow up, either from the call or the additional materials. I understand that Chris has asked that the updated Decision Tree and Comparison Table also be distributed to the Board, so that they may form a useful reference source for the upcoming Hyderabad discussions. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 01:43 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FOLLOW UP on Coordination Call on IGO/Red Cross protections among Board, GAC and GNSO representatives Dear all, As further follow up to James’ email (below), please find attached a Decision Tree that ICANN staff prepared to illustrate the various options available to the Board, and each of its consequences. Steve Chan and I are currently updating the document to also include information on Board-GAC process interaction, and we will send that updated version as soon as we can. In the meantime, we hope the attached is helpful to the Council in your continuing deliberations on this topic. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 17:07 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC Council colleagues – Earlier today, the Council leadership (Heather, Donna and myself), along with the co-chairs of the IGO Curative Rights PDP (Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth) and our liaison to the GAC (Mason Cole) had a conversation with members of the ICANN Board and leadership on the GAC. The focus of our discussions were protections for IGO Acronyms, and included a status update on consideration of the “small group” proposal and an exchange of views on the path(s) forward. MP3 recording and Adobe chat transcript below, with a transcript of the call forthcoming. Please feel free to share with your SGs and Cs, as I think many will find this material interesting in the run up to Hyderabad. Thanks— J. From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 14:23 Subject: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC Dear All, Please find attendance ,mp3, and AC chat below for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. We will send transcription upon receipt. MP3: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/8qwxvolztr9ydjk9ii4gf0izayvv8yy4.mp3[icann.box.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icann.box.com_shared_static_8qwxvolztr9ydjk9ii4gf0izayvv8yy4.mp3&d=DQMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2lGi9fX-HXZkwLCuBbXdWR7OYUsyIEmgoSodkDrX_zg&s=BNtD1w71zfr0Xjkqf8sP7Yi-11NyrRUKDOSKL2dCVGk&e=> Attendance: Petter Rindforth, Heather Forrest, Donna Austin, James Bladel, Markus Kummer , Tom Dale, Mason Cole, Thomas Schneider , Phil Corwin, Jorge Cancio, Ashley Heineman, Chris Disspain , Mark Carvell, Steve Crocker and Becky Burr Staff: Mary Wong, Olof Nordling, Jamie Hedlund, Steve Chan, Terri Agnew, Nigel Hickson Apologies: none Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew AC Chat Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Heather Forrest:Thanks Terri - I'll dial in now but if I have trouble I will let you know Terri Agnew:sounds good thanks Heather James Bladel:Heather made it, Bruce is expected. Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):It's 3am in Canberra too. Heather Forrest:Indeed it is 3am Philip Corwin:Heather is setting an example for Bruce ;-) James Bladel:Thanks, recording & roll call would be great. nigel hickson:good afternoon Donna Austin, RySG:Good morning Tom :-) Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Yo. Mary Wong:The best bits were done by Steve :) Petter Rindforth:Is it possible to get a specified agenda to us all on each session at ICANN57 where this topic will be discussed? Mary Wong:@Petter, at the moment on the public schedule there is a GAC session at noon local time on Friday 4 Nov Mary Wong:I believe the Board, GAC and GNSO are still finalizing their internal agendas, including topics for their joint meetings with one another. Petter Rindforth:Thanks Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Steve: The GAC has put together a list of around 230 IGOs that should have their acronyms protected. This list was put together in around 2013 and it is planned that this list will be updated every few years. Olof Nordling:and the meeting GAC-GNSO Friday 4 Nov 1430 - 1600 has this topic on the agenda Thomas Schneider (GAC):And: the list has been set up following some criteria, i believe taken from those that are used for eligibilty for getting a .int domain Mary Wong:@Thomas,yes, I believe so. Thomas Schneider (GAC):ok Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I understand the Curative Rights WG will present its draft recommendations at a session on the Monday 0900-1030. There are GAC plenary sessions at this time. Mary Wong:@Tom, yes that is the slot, I'm afraid. Jorge Cancio:Guess we are entering very much into substance here... a pity that IGOs/ICRC are not here Philip Corwin:Petter has his hand up and may want to comment on the WG status as well Chris Disspain:acknowledged Philip Chris Disspain:Petter will be next Heather Forrest:I lost much of what Thomas said - not sure if others did as well or if it was just a problem on my end of the phone bridge James Bladel:I think it was on your side, I can hear him fine. Chris Disspain:I can hear him clearlyu Heather Forrest:OK - glad it wasn't the bridge itself Mary Wong:Following up on James' point, the process he is describing requires both consultation with the original PDP Working Group AND public comment. Becky Burr:i am moving to phone only Jorge Cancio:the reconvening of the PDP WG would be needed for adjusting the preventative protections only, right? Philip Corwin:I must demur from the charcaterization of IGO Proposal as a "compromise", at least in regard to its CRP provisions. While providing somewhat more detail, it is essentially the same position they have conveyed for the part two years. Mary Wong:@Jorge, yes - as the proposals for curative rights (rapid relief plus separate DRP) is being handled by the ongoing PDP Working Group chaired by Phil and Petter. Jorge Cancio:@Mary: thanks! Mary Wong:@Jorge, and for further background - the reason for this is that the original PDP Working Group made recommendations for preventative protections, and proposed that curative rights be referred to a subsequent effort (via a GNSO Issue Report and thus a new PDP). James Bladel:Agreeing with Heather & Donna - We are awaiting some action from the Board (rejection of GAC advice of PDP). And in the case of the latter, it's not a foregone conclusion that the GNSO Council will vote to reconstittue the PDP, or that the outcome would be materially different than the original recommendations. Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, it is a compromise between the GAC and the Board regarding GAC advice that the GNSO was not involved in. Chris Disspain:'why have we done this' may turn out to be a very pertinent question Thomas... Heather Forrest:I'm just increasingly afraid that the perception is that the GNSO is unwilling or uninterested when that is not the case. Our procedures simply leave no room for "reconciliation" or "negotiation" on the GNSO's or GNSO Council's own initiative. Chris Disspain:understood Heather Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Donna: the GAC and the IGOs were participating in the small group in the clear understanding that the Board (and ICANN staff) was at least informally in contact with the authorized parties of the GNSO to make sure that what we have been working on would at least have a chance to serve as a basis for finding a concrete and pragmatical solution Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, understood Heather Forrest:Phil's comments that the IGOs have not participated in the Curative Rights PDP WG worry me, because this suggests that issues like this will keep arising, putting us all in this position over and over again Jorge Cancio:Just to make sure I explained myself: 1) on IGOs we have two clear positions before the Board. The Board can get all parties on a table with a clear timeframe to seek for a pragmatic solution. Part of that could feed into the ongoing work on curative protections; 2) a low-hanging fruit that could send a positive signal across the community would be to swiftly resolve the ICRC issue (at least the protection of the national society names) nigel hickson:Just to note for ICRC main issue is "National Names" (like British Red Cross); they only have 5 acronyms that current,y have temporary protection. Mary Wong:@James, the original recommendations that have already been approved by the Board would not be affected. Those remaining interim protections - i.e. reservations - that are in place will go away once a permanent resolution is approved. Jorge Cancio:Indeed a low-hangig fruit, I feel, that could create the right atmosphere Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Heather: i gave some explanations for why that the GAC and the IGOs came to the conclsuion that - after the experience with their participation in the first PDP and given that the second would build on the first and be dealing with the issue focussing on legal aspects that were not considered to be very conducive to finding a pragmatical solution. But i guess somebody like Brian Beckham from WIPO would be able to explain this more accurately and in more detail. Chris Disspain:it was not and is not intended that this call would be about the past and why X and Y were not in the room or were in the room etc. James Bladel:@Mary - So you are saying that, effectively, the Board has a "line item veto" when presented with a package of PDP recommendations? If so, then we should consider this for future PDPs, espeically if there are inseparable dependencies. Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris: hope you are going to repond on RedCross? Jorge Cancio:The ad hoc process would need to be inclusive of the PDP WG on curative protections of course - do not think that is impossible Mary Wong:@James, in this case the Board adopted the consistent recommendations and asked for more time for those that were inconsistent. Chris Disspain:I can't respond on RC Mark.....I will find out and see if we can get a note out ASAP Chris Disspain:James...does the GNSO consdier that the RC issue cn be dealt with separately? Jorge Cancio:@Chris: as I said, swift resolution of the ICRC would be a significant positive sign James Bladel:Mary - To my knowledge, we didn't highlight any dependencies for this PDP. We may need to do this going forward, if piecemeal approval/rejection is a potential outcome. Chris Disspain:understood @ Jorge Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris - I mean respond on a next final step to do a fix that meets legal requirements. James Bladel:Agree with Thomas, the world is watching. Espeically in regard to the recent transition, to see if the community model can stand alongside of governments. Philip Corwin:The world is also watching to see if ICANN follows its own Bylaws -- not "flexible" ad hoc processes Donna Austin, RySG:Thomas, I agree with you, we need to find some flexibility within our proceses before PDP recommendations are finalised and GAC advice is delivered to the Board. Jorge Cancio:@James: the GAC is part of the community - we have to work out a solution together Mason Cole:We do have mechanisms that the GNSO-GAC consultation group put into place for GAC engagement in poicy development. James Bladel:Chris - sorry, missed your question about severabiliyt of the RC. That is something we are also discussing. Jorge Cancio:@James: resolution of the ICRC really would help Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:ICRC is over-long-running issue! Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Philipp: But i am convinced that internet users (inviduals and businesses) care about solutions that work. if the current structures and procedures allow to get there fine. if not then maybe there is a need for improvement of strucutres... nigel hickson:Thanks to all; Markus Kummer:Bye all -- this call was very helpful. thanks! Thomas Schneider (GAC):thank you all. bye! Jorge Cancio:bye all and thanks!