I agree with James. There is no doubt that the legal protection issues for the Red Cross and Red Crescent etc are unique, very strong, and not the same as the IGOs. 
But the council manages policy, it does not rule on substantive issues, and the legal basis is an example of the substantive issue that was thoroughly discussed by that WG. The ICRC may disagree with some of their decisions,and there is room for further discussion, but as a council we are limited in what we can do - we can only reconstitute the working group, the situation is not yet right for that, and that working group concerned IGO/INGO issues as well, and so as a council it is appropriate for us to consider them together. 

On substantive issues of law, they are very different cases. Procedurally however, they are linked, and council manages procedure. 

The ICRC are a vital organisation with a very strong legal basis for some of the rights they want here. But they can be wrong in their opinion as to how those issues translate to the domain name policy space, and they absolutely can (and have been) wrong about how best to deal with ICANN, specifically GNSO, policy processes. Some of you will remember their contribution to the London GAC communique, which I certainly was not happy about. 

David



On 25 May 2016, at 11:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:

Thanks Donna and Phil for contributing your thoughts to this thread.

I agree with Phil (and the Red Cross) that the legal issues underlying these topics are distinctly different, and we should -not– include or reference the report from the advisors to the Curative Rights PDP.  

However, both the RC and IGO/INGO issues were unanimously approved as part of the same PDP by our predecessors in 2013, and both are on hold pending further action for the Board.  As a result, I don’t think we, as a Council are linking them, and it’s appropriate for us to include them together in the same letter.

Thanks -

J.




From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 13:07 
To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] RE: Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board

Hi Phil
 
The RySG does not dispute the legal basis for RC protections; however, we are very concerned that if the RC and IGO acronym issues are decoupled it may take even longer to resolve the IGO acronym issue. The Council is not causing the delay in resolving any of these outstanding issues—that delay is the result of the Board, or the NGPC, not making any progress on this issue in the last two or so years. My preference is to send the letter as drafted and decide on next steps after we have received a response from the Board.
 
I also have some reservations about the manner in which the RC is lobbying the Council as evidenced by their most recent communication: I think we need to be careful that this is not perceived by some as unfair treatment.
 
Donna
 
Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@neustar.biz
 
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.

Follow Neustar:   <image003.png> Facebook   <image004.png> LinkedIn   <image005.png> Twitter

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
 
 
 
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:18 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] RE: Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board
 
In view of this new letter from the Red Cross, I’d again urge that Council refrain from insisting that its issues be decided in tandem with the much broader IGO issues. If we have an opportunity to settle the red Cross matter on its own separate merits there’s no reason to hold it hostage to other matters.
 
Thanks for considering that POV.
 
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell
 
Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
 
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:47 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board
 
Dear Councilors,
 
Please see the message below that was sent by the Red Cross representatives yesterday. On behalf of the Council and the chairs, staff have acknowledged receipt of the note.
 
Thanks and cheers
Mary
 
 
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
 
 
 
From: Salah Mathlouthi <smathlouthi@icrc.org>
Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 23:59
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>
Cc: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@icann.org>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey@icrc.org>, Stephane Hankins <shankins@icrc.org>
Subject: Draft GNSO Communication to the Board - Red Cross and Red Crescent protections
 
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)

Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier

·        To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

·        Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier

·        From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

·        Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:22:37 +0000 

·        Accept-language: en-US 

·        List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

·        Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

·        Thread-index: AQHRsk89sbH/K1NLyEimzyoyZLHunQ== 

·        Thread-topic: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier

·        User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506 

<image006.gif>

Dear Councilors,

Following further consultations between the Council chairs and staff on this 
matter, the chairs would like to provide the attached letter for your final 
review before it is sent to the ICANN Board. Essentially, this is the version 
suggested by the RySG (per Donna’s earlier note, below) but with a single 
revision at the end of the second paragraph, to clarify that the GNSO’s IGO and 
Red Cross recommendations originated in a single PDP.

Please indicate any objections or concerns you may have with this proposed 
final version of the letter to the Board by COB in your time zone on Monday 23 
May if at all possible, following which we will transmit the final letter to 
the Board shortly thereafter on behalf of Donna, Heather, James and the Council.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
Telephone: +1-603-5744889


From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" 
<Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier

James, all

Following on from the discussion on the Council call yesterday about next steps 
in resolving the issue of permanent protection of certain Red Cross 
identifiers, the RySG has requested that the letter to the Board be amended to 
request an update/resolution of the outstanding issues related to the permanent 
protection of certain Red Cross identifiers and IGO acronyms. These issues have 
not previously been decoupled and we are concerned that if the Council suggests 
this as a path forward at this point it may be at the expense of resolving the 
remaining issues associated with IGO acronyms.

Proposed amendments to the letter are provided for consideration.

Thanks

Donna

Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: 
donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
Follow Neustar:   [id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>   
[id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>   
[id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0]  Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

Attachment: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 20 May.docx
Description: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 20 May.docx

<image007.gif>

·        Follow-Ups: 

·       Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier  

·      From: David Cake 

 

=============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
<image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.gif><image007.gif>