Looks good to me. Don´t know if Phil Corwin wants to add something about the recent opinion drafted by the Law expert retained for the RPM. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 19 May 2016, at 22:22, Mary Wong wrote:

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@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44 To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> 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@neustar.biz<mailto: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: [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.

I am generally OK with the letter but have a question about this passage: One point emphasized during this briefing was that the international legal basis for protections of Red Cross identifiers is significantly different from that for IGOs. While that may be the case, the Red Cross and IGO identifier issues relate to recommendations that came out of a single GNSO PDP and were sent as such to the Board, and we therefore request that both be addressed in tandem. As the letter notes, the legal basis for RC protections is completely different than for IGOs, and confounding sovereign immunity issues that arise with IGOs do not for the RC. It may take a very long time to resolve all the IGO issues, whereas the RC may be more easily dealt with. If that’s the case, and given the concern that many governments have about RC protections, if there is an opportunity to take that issue off the table and achieve some sense of progress and goodwill vis-à-vis the GAC, why insist that they be tethered together and addressed in tandem? I would prefer to see some greater flexibility on that which allows for the possibility of separate resolution. Thanks for considering, Philip 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: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:23 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@neustar.biz<mailto:Donna.Austin@neustar.biz>> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> 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@neustar.biz<mailto: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: [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. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16