March 2017 - Discussion-igo-rc

Summary of discussion on the GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on IGO Protections
by Bruce Tonkin April 27, 2017

April 27, 2017

Hello All, Thanks again for the representatives from the GNSO, IGOs, and GAC for participating in the facilitated discussion yesterday. I know it was late in the day and we were all tired. I updated slide 14 in the attached presentation with the correct PDP information. Apologies for my cut and paste error there. I thought I would summarize some of the high level points as I understood them from the discussion while my memory is still fresh. A recording and transcript from the session will also be made available. (0) Public Interest - there was acceptance that it was in the global public interest to ensure there are mechanisms in place in the domain name registration system to minimize risks to members of the public who are often targeted by individuals or organizations posing as IGOs or IGO officials or organizations. (1) Reservation - there was acceptance of the Board's decision to permanently reserve the full names of IGOs from registration at the second level.. This is because these names are unique and there is no other legitimate purpose for those names beyond their use associated with the IGO. - the GNSO policy recommendation also provide a mechanism by which the IGO associated with a reserved name can seek to get the name delegated in new gTLDs. - while the representatives from the IGOs prefer that IGO acronyms are reserved from registration to make protection easier for them, there was recognition that short strings (e.g. 2 to 4 characters) have many uses and there are no people or organizations that have exclusive ownership or use of these strings, thus it is not in the public interest to reserve these useful strings from registration. - the focus for protection against mis-use of IGO acronyms has therefore shifted to mechanisms to give notice and appropriate dispute resolution options. (2) Notice - The GNSO Policy recommendations provide for a notice to be provided in the first 90 days after a new gTLD launches. This leverages the software and systems associated with the 90 day trademark claims process. In this process a registration is notified of the rights associated with a domain name before they complete registration. After registration the rights holder is notified. There would need to be some modification of the text of such notices to avoid confusion between the legal rights of IGOs and the legal rights of trademark holders. - The GAC representatives made clear that they saw the need for an ongoing notification process for whenever a string is placed in the DNS that matches an IGO acronym - I proposed a possible solution whereby the IGOs can be provided with a watch service for both existing and new gTLDs, whereby they will be notified whenever a string matching their IGO acronym is published in the DNS. Such a service can be built using the existing process whereby registries publish their DNS zone files on a daily basis. This service can be provided on an ongoing basis. Commercial services exist to perform this function, or alternatively ICANN could develop its own service. - there was agreement that this solution sounded reasonable and did not require additional GNSO policy development, nor changes to the current GNSO proposal to the trademark claims software and systems during the first 90 days of a new gTLD. (3) Dispute resolution - there was general agreement that a dispute process should be modelled on the existing UDRP and URS processes - the GNSO Working Group looking a Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms has taken the approach of wanting to use the existing UDRP process that was developed as a dispute process for complainants with trademark rights, with the ability for an IGO that has notified WIPO of its acronym under Article 6ter to have standing. The rationale for this was that creating a new dispute resolution process would take some time, and was not justified for a limited set of rights holders. - the representatives of the GNSO Working Group looking a Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms also noted that in the near future there would be a full review of the existing UDRP. - IGOs that have taken out trademark registrations on their acronyms could clearly use the existing UDRP and URS processes. - it was recognized that IGO's that have taken advantage of the Article 6ter process to prevent parties from creating trademarks using their marks, do not actually have trademark rights and hence the UDRP may not be the best match for the legal rights that they have - it was noted that under the Paris Convention, national Governments are meant to create national laws to help protect the names and abbreviations of IGO acronyms against mis-use. However the implementation of this varies widely between countries. E.g. in Australia the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 has provisions against misleading or deceptive conduct. It was not clear what laws and legal rights have been applied to deal with mis-use of IGO acronyms in the past outside of the trademark and domain name system. - while it is possible to create a separate dispute resolution mechanism it is still not clear what are the underlying legal rights associated with IGO acronyms, and the relevant national laws that are used to protect and enforce those rights. It appears further legal advice would be needed to get a clearer sense of the specific legal rights and applicable local laws, before being able to design a new dispute resolution process. - the GNSO working group on curative rights will take into account the discussion as part of their review of all the comments received on their initial report. All input will be carefully analysed and a rationale will be provided where suggestions are not accepted. (4) Appeals - it is noted that the current appeals process for UDRP and URS is a court of competent jurisdiction, and a party defending against a complaint can take a dispute to the court before or after the dispute proceedings - it was also noted that many IGOs have their acronyms registered under the .org gTLD and have agreed to the existing UDRP and URS processes with respect to the registration of their names. If an IGO is subject to an UDRP or URS complaint they would likely be able to show that they have existing legal rights in their name. - The GAC advice and IGO representatives suggested an arbitration process as an appeals process where both parties would be subject to binding arbitration, instead of the court of competent jurisdiction. The rationale for this was the IGOs have been granted certain immunities from prosecution, to help allow them to be independent of influence by individual nations. The representatives from the IGOs did not want to give up this immunity as part of the dispute resolution process. - the representatives from the GNSO working group on curative rights gave as a rationale that the arbitration process may take away some of the legal rights available to the domain name registrant that is subject to a UDRP or URS complaint by an IGO. For example, a court may be able to determine whether the existing registrant had legal rights in a name, and hence the circumstances would not meet the test in the UDRP for the cancellation or transfer of the name to the IGO. - the representatives from the GNSO working group on curative rights noted that under the existing UDRP and URS processes, if a UDRP or URS matter was taken to court, that the IGO could establish its immunity as part of the legal process. It is unlikely that the court would be imposing any form of penalty on the IGO in situations where the IGO was the complainant, as the IGO is not the holder or user of the domain name. - the representatives from the GNSO working group on curative rights also noted that the numbers of UDRP or URS cases that have been taken to court is very small - the GNSO working group on curative rights will take into account the discussion as part of their review of all the comments received on their initial report. All input will be carefully analysed and a rationale will be provided where suggestions are not accepted. I welcome feedback on my summary and where I may have misinterpreted the discussion. Thanks Bruce Tonkin

3 7

Working session on the protections for Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement names and identifiers in gTLDs - Follow-up
by Stephane Hankins March 24, 2017

March 24, 2017

Dear Bruce, dear Members of the Working Group, We would like to begin by thanking Bruce for so ably facilitating the Working session held during ICANN 58 in Copenhagen on the Protections for Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers in gTLD's and to all members of the Working group for their active participation. All gratitude also to concerned ICANN Staff for organising and holding the session. We welcome the outcomes of the Working Group discussions and the subsequent Board Resolution adopted in Copenhagen and are trustful that the process will result in a satisfactory resolution and a reconciliation between GAC advice and of the GNSO's 2013 Policy Recommendations. Further to the facilitated dialogue and to the questions raised on the occasion of the recent Working session, we would like to take this opportunity to confirm the following points: (1) The permanent reservation and protections are sought for: - The names and identifiers of the 190 National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), and thus, in the national language (or languages) of their respective national States; - The names of the two international organizations or components of the Movement, namely, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in the six (6) United Nations languages (which are also the six (6) official languages of the International Federation), as well as the most usual initials/acronyms of both organizations (i.e. ICRC/CICR/MKKK and IFRC/FICR). NB: The initials/acronym MKKK was included in our past recommendations to the GNSO PDP (and referenced in the GNSO's policy recommendations), but was omitted from the relevant paragraph of the GAC's Dublin Communiqué. (2) The reservations sought are grounded in - The protections of the designations "Red Cross, "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun" and "Red Crystal under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005 and under the laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; (It is noted that the Board's Resolution adopted in Copenhagen fails, unfortunately, to reference the protections of the designations and names under international law and the afore-mentioned international treaties); and - The global public interest in ensuring the protections of the names and identifiers of the different Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations (national and international) from all forms of abuse, including fraudulent use and embezzlement. (3) As regards the list of names and identifiers of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' names, the following should be noted: - There can only be one Red Cross or one Red Crescent Society in any one country - this results from the Movement's Fundamental Principle of Unity and is confirmed under Article 4 of the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (as adopted by the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and therefore adopted by, and committing upon, all States and on all components of the Movement). See the Preamble and Article 4 (Conditions for recognition of National Societies) of the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/statutes-en-a5.pdf) - The list of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies recognized by the ICRC as Movement components (and admitted as members of the IFRC) is a finite list and is only liable to increase subject to strict criteria and conditions - the first criteria being that the National Society applying for recognition in the Movement must be established on the territory of a State party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. There are to date 196 High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and 190 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. There are two new National Societies today in the process of creation and which might be considered for recognition in the near future. - The permanent reservations are sought for 1) the exact match names of the respective National Societies in their official form (as included in the list downloaded from the IFRC website) and 2) as applicable, in their usual form. For instance, with regard to the American Red Cross, both the official name "American National Red Cross" and the usual name "American Red Cross" are for now temporarily reserved and proposed for permanent reservation. - Where required, the reservation is sought for the names and identifiers with slight variations, such as with or without hyphens; with or without the inclusion of the article "The" or the word "Society". - A conversation is under way with Mary and other concerned ICANN staff colleagues (which has included as series of detailed exchanges in the past) in order to resolve remaining issues with the list of National Society names and identifiers submitted for reservation and included under Specification 5. Issues remaining to be resolved relate to certain technical constraints in reserving strings in certain fonts or to the lengths of certain strings submitted for reservation. A recommendation has also been submitted by the Movement for a modification of the titles of the two categories of Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers included under Specification 5 as these remain unclear. (4) We take note lastly of the discussion during the recent Working Group discussions in Copenhagen underlining the importance and relevance of capping or complementing the permanent reservation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers with a complementary curative rights approach and thus, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring the possibility of an objection or rapid take down mechanism - e.g. if strings are improperly registered or in the event of requests for registration of strings confusingly similar to the Red Cross or Red Crescent names and identifiers in the context of a humanitarian emergency. Many thanks once again for hosting the facilitated dialogue during ICANN 58. We remain available to provide any further assistance that would be necessitated and to take part in any future consultations in this matter to be held under ICANN/GNSO auspices. Kind regards, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet Director Communication and Information Management Department International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Tel: + 41 22 730 2773 email: clindsey(a)icrc.org www.icrc.org Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <STYLE type="text/css">  </STYLE> </head> <body> <hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/> <p>The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: <a href="http://www.icrc.org">www.icrc.org</a><p> <p>This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only.<br> 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. </p> <hr style="color: #000000;background-color: #000000;height: 1px;"/> </body> </html>

1 0

Slides and transcript from GNSO Working Group: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process
by Bruce Tonkin March 18, 2017

March 18, 2017

Hello All, Attached is a copy of the slides and transcript from the GNSO Working Group: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process meeting in Copenhagen on Wednesday 15 March 2017 at 1:45pm. This meeting was held following our meeting on Sunday evening and includes some reflections from participants since that meeting. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Transcript from GAC Update: IGO and Red Cross Protections on Sunday 12 March 2017
by Bruce Tonkin March 18, 2017

March 18, 2017

Hello All, In addition to the sessions on Saturday morning and Sunday evening- there were some other sessions during the week. Attached is the transcript from the GAC Update: IGO and Red Cross Protections, held at 9am on Sunday 12 March 2017. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Board resolution on .Protections for Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement Identifiers in gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin March 17, 2017

March 17, 2017

Hello All, It was nice to see that the ICANN Board took an action following our discussion on the protections for Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement names on Saturday morning (almost a week ago now). Thanks again for all those who contributed on this topic over the past week. See below. Lots of long sentences :-) Regards, Bruce Tonkin i. Protections for Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement Identifiers in gTLDs Whereas, at ICANN57 in Hyderabad the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve outstanding inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding second-level protections in all gTLDs for the identifiers (names and acronyms) of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). This includes certain identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (referred to as "Scope 2 Identifiers" in the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs [ https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf ]). Whereas, the Board acknowledged that any outcome of any dialogue between the affected parties would be conditioned on, and would be reviewed according to, the GAC's and the GNSO's own internal processes. Whereas, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in a facilitated discussion at ICANN58 in Copenhagen concerning protections for International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identifiers (Recommendation 5) in Section 3.1. of the PDP Working Group's Final Report. Whereas, the starting place for the facilitated discussion was a problem statement and briefing materials reviewed by the affected parties (https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw ). Whereas, during the facilitated discussion, the interested parties discussed the following matters: (1) The GAC's rationale for seeking permanent protections for the identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its respective components (including the 190 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Movement's two international organizations – the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), is grounded in the protections of the designations "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun", and "Red Crystal" under the laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; and the global public policy considerations in the protections of the identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations from forms of misuse in the domain name system, including from fraud and embezzlement in times of humanitarian crises. (2) The list of names of the National Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies submitted for protection is finite and comprises the names of the 190 National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – the Movement – both in English and in each National Society's official national language(s) and script(s). The number of National Societies (see the official list of National Societies at http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ) is limited and only subject to increase further to the future recognition within the Movement of new National Societies (a development that remains subject to a strict process and to strict conditions defined in the Statutes of the Movement). In accordance with the Fundamental Principle of Unity, there can only be one National Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal Society in any one country. The National Societies' names submitted for protection in the DNS include the official names of the 190 National Societies recognized within the Movement, as well as where these are distinct, their usual names. (3) The respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations should preserve the ability to register their names should they require to do so, and there are no other legitimate uses for these names. Whereas, the participants in the facilitated discussion took note that, following the completion of the GNSO PDP, the GAC provided additional guidance as to the specific International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identifiers for which protections were being sought (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2… ). Whereas, the GAC issued advice to the ICANN Board in the Copenhagen Communique [https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?pre… ] to "request the GNSO without delay to re-examine its 2013 recommendations pertaining to the protections of Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers (defined as 'Scope 2' names in the GNSO process) which were inconsistent with GAC Advice." Whereas, the Board has considered the outputs from the facilitated discussion and the GAC's advice in the context of ICANN's mission and ICANN's commitment to carry out its mission in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law, as expressed in ICANN's Bylaws. Resolved (2017.03.16.13), the Board requests that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual, to consider amending Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1. of the PDP Working Group Final Report, as follows: (1) The full names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level; (2) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and (3) In considering the Board's request, the Council is requested to duly take into account these factors and the public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. Resolved (2017.03.16.14), the Board thanks Dr. Bruce Tonkin for facilitating the GAC-GNSO discussions on this topic, and thanks the GAC and the GNSO representatives who participated in the facilitated discussions for their good faith participation and willingness to work toward a reconciliation of the matter. Rationale for Resolutions 2017.03.16.13 – 2017.03.16.14 Why is the Board addressing the issue now? The Board is taking action at this time to advance the community discussions regarding second-level protections in all gTLDs for the identifiers of the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement. The Board's resolution is related to previous Board actions to address GAC advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations on the broader issue of protections in gTLDs for the identifiers (names and acronyms) of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs). In November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP), which resulted in consensus policy recommendations for protecting the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the top and second level in all gTLDs. On 30 April 2014, the Board approved some, but not all, of the GNSO Council consensus policy recommendations from the PDP Working Group's Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs [PDF, 644 KB]. At that time, the Board requested additional time to consider the remaining consensus policy recommendations because the Board had received conflicting advice from the GAC on the same topic. The Board decided to facilitate discussions among the relevant parties to reconcile the differences between the GNSO policy recommendations and the GAC advice on the topic. Between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the inconsistency between GAC advice and GNSO-approved policy, which raised the possibility of the GNSO considering a modification of its PDP recommendation concerning the Scope 2 Identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (see, e.g., letter from the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) Chair to the GNSO Chair of 16 June 2014: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/chalaby-to-robinson-24jul14-en.pdf [PDF, 276 KB]). Most recently, at ICANN57 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve outstanding inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations. This included certain identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (referred to as "Scope 2 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group). What is the proposal being considered? At ICANN58, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in a facilitated discussion concerning protections for the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement identifiers (Recommendations 5 and 6 in Section 3.1. of the PDP Working Group's Final Report). This discussion was based on materials reviewed by the affected parties. These specific identifiers under discussion were the 190 names of the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (e.g. The Gambia Red Cross Society) (referred to as "Scope 2 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group). The GNSO consensus policy recommendations reflected in the 10 November 2013 Final Report are that the Scope 2 Identifiers are to be placed into the Trademark Clearinghouse for protection via a 90-days Claims Notification process. Representatives of the Movement who participated in the PDP Working Group submitted a minority statement to the PDP Working Group's Final Report noting that the proposed protections for the Scope 2 Identifiers do not reflect the legal protections accorded to the Movement's designations and emblems under international law and local laws in force in multiple jurisdictions. Following completion of the GNSO PDP, the GAC provided additional guidance to the Board in its March 2014 Singapore Communique [PDF, 145 KB] regarding protections for the International Red Cross Red Crescent Movement. The GAC referred to its previous advice that the terms associated with the Movement should be protected permanently from unauthorized use, and clarified that this should include the 189 (now 190) National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin, as well as the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in the six (6) United Nations languages. During the facilitated discussion, the affected parties discussed the following matters: (1) The GAC's rationale for seeking permanent protections for the identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its respective components (including the 190 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Movement's two international organizations – the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), is grounded in the protections of the designations "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun", and "Red Crystal" under the laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; and the global public policy considerations in the protections of the identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations from forms of misuse in the domain name system, including from fraud and embezzlement in times of humanitarian crises. (2) The list of names of the National Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies submitted for protection is finite and comprises the names of the 190 National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – the Movement – both in English and in each National Society's official national language(s) and script(s). The number of National Societies (see the official list of National Societies at http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf [PDF, 657 KB]) is limited and only subject to increase further to the future recognition within the Movement of new National Societies (a development that remains subject to a strict process and to strict conditions defined in the Statutes of the Movement). In accordance with the Fundamental Principle of Unity, there can only be one National Red Cross, Red Crescent or Red Crystal Society in any one country. The National Societies' names submitted for protection in the DNS include the official names of the 190 National Societies recognized within the Movement, as well as where these are distinct, their usual names. (3) The respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations should preserve the ability to register their names should they require to do so, and there are no other legitimate uses for these names. The participants in the facilitated discussion noted that, following the completion of the PDP, the GAC provided additional guidance as to the specific Movement identifiers for which protection was being sought. Given this, the Board is now requesting that the GNSO Council initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual, to consider amending Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1. of the PDP Working Group Final Report as follows: (1) The full names of the 190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level; (2) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and (3) In considering the Board's request, the Council is requested to duly take into account these factors and the public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. As described in the GNSO PDP Manual, the GNSO Council may modify or amend consensus policies prior to final approval by the ICANN Board. This process for doing so includes reconvening or reforming the PDP Team to consider the proposed amendments or modifications, publishing for public comment the proposed revisions or modifications, and GNSO Council consideration of the proposed amendments or modifications. Which stakeholders or others were consulted? The matter of protections for identifiers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has been under discussion in various parts of the community for several years. If the GNSO Council accepts the Board's request to consider amending its consensus policy recommendations, any resulting proposed modifications will be the subject of a public comment period. What concerns or issues were raised by the community? The community has requested that the Board move forward with resolving this open issue as soon as possible. Additionally, other community concerns about protections for IGOs and INGOs in the GNSO policy recommendations are summarized in rationale to Board Resolutions 2014.04.30.03 – 2014.04.30.05, which is incorporated here. What significant materials did the Board review? As part of its deliberations, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents: ◾PDP Working Group Final Report ◾GAC Singapore Communique (March 2014) ◾Problem Statement and briefing materials prepared for the GAC-GNSO facilitated dialogue at ICANN58 ◾GNSO PDP Manual What factors the Board found to be significant? In taking this action, the Board has considered the outputs from the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion in the context of ICANN's mission and ICANN's commitment to carry out its mission in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law, as expressed in ICANN's Bylaws. The Board has also considered its role in considering the consensus policy recommendations developed as part of the bottom-up policy development process, as well as its role in considering advice from the GAC. Are there positive or negative community impacts? By adopting this resolution, the Board is taking a step to advance the community's work on developing a final resolution of the scope of protections for International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identifiers. There are additional outstanding consensus policy recommendations from the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. The Board will continue to work on a path forward on these remaining open issues related to the protections for IGOs and INGOs. Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? There are no anticipated fiscal impacts on ICANN, the community or the public related to the Board's action. Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS? There are no security, stability, or resiliency issues related to the DNS as a result of the Board's action. This is an Organizational Administrative Function of ICANN not requiring public comment.

2 1

Slides from session on GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group
by Bruce Tonkin March 17, 2017

March 17, 2017

Hello All, From: https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nms/gnso-igo-ingo-curative-rights-protect… Attached are the slides used on the Wednesday session of the GNSO IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group. The slides are also available at: http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/ad/IGO-INGO%20CRP%20WG%20… Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GAC Advice on IGO Protections
by Bruce Tonkin March 17, 2017

March 17, 2017

Hello All, For information, here is the relevant text from the GAC Copenhagen Communiqué (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee) : " IGO Protections The GAC notes that a dialogue facilitated by the Board on this topic has begun between the GAC and the GNSO (including its relevant Working Groups). The GAC expects that these discussions would resolve the long-outstanding issue of IGO acronym protections and understands that temporary protections will continue to remain in place until such time as a permanent agreed solution is found. Based upon the facilitated discussions up to this stage, a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to: I. pursue implementation of (i) a permanent system of notification to IGOs regarding second-level registration of strings that match their acronyms in up to two languages and (ii) a parallel system of notification to registrants for a more limited time period, in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO recommendations; II. facilitate continued discussions in order to develop a resolution that will reflect (i) the fact that IGOs are in an objectively unique category of rights holders and (ii) a better understanding of relevant GAC Advice, particularly as it relates to IGO immunities recognized under international law as noted by IGO Legal Counsels; and III. urge the Working Group for the ongoing PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms to take into account the GAC's comments on the Initial Report." RATIONALE This Advice captures achievements made to date in the facilitated discussions, in the hope that this will be instrumental in resolving this long-standing issue at the earliest opportunity." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GAC advice on Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers
by Bruce Tonkin March 17, 2017

March 17, 2017

Hello All, For information, here is the relevant text from the GAC Copenhagen Communiqué (https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee) : " Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers Re-affirming previous GAC Advice for a permanent reservation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers, the GAC acknowledges the conclusions of the facilitated dialogue held during ICANN 58 on resolving outstanding differences between the GAC's previous advice and the GNSO's past recommendations to the Board on the protections of the names and identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations. Consistent with the conclusions of the abovementioned dialogue, a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to: I. request the GNSO without delay to re-examine its 2013 recommendations pertaining to the protections of Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers (defined as "Scope 2" names in the GNSO process) which were inconsistent with GAC Advice. RATIONALE The GAC acknowledges the outputs of the facilitated dialogue on this topic and requests the Board to proceed accordingly without delay." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Possible text for a Board resolution following the discussion on Red Cross on Saturday morning
by Bruce Tonkin March 16, 2017

March 16, 2017

Hello All, At the conclusion for the discussion on protection for names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the GNSO delegation proposed that the Board formally ask the GNSO to investigate. Here is some possible text of a Board resolution that could be passed on Thursday for your comment: "Whereas, during the facilitated discussion, the affected parties discussed the following matters: (1) The list of the names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (see http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf) ; (2) The GAC's rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun", and "Red Crystal" under international treaty law and under multiple national laws; (3) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (4) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identifiers in the domain name system (DNS). Whereas, the participants in the facilitated discussion took note that, following the completion of the GNSO PDP, the GAC provided additional guidance as to the specific International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement identifiers for which protections were being sought. Whereas, the Board has considered the outputs from the facilitated discussion in the context of ICANN's mission and ICANN's commitment to carry out its mission in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law, as expressed in ICANN's Bylaws. Resolved (xx.xx.2017.xx), the Board requests that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual, to consider amending Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1. of the PDP Working Group Final Report to duly take into account the public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 7

Transcript of the GAC GNSO Facilitated Discussion on protection for IGO Acronyms - Sunday 12 March 2017
by Bruce Tonkin March 14, 2017

March 14, 2017

Hello All, The transcript of the GAC GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on IGO Acronyms - Sunday 12 March 2017 is now published at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-gac-igo-crp-12mar17-en.p… I have attached it for information. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0