April 2017 - Discussion-igo-rc

External Legal advice on applicable local law for the protection of the legal rights of IGOs
by Bruce Tonkin April 30, 2017

April 30, 2017

Hello All, During the discussion in Copenhagen it was agreed that there was a public interest goal in protecting the Names and abbreviations of International InterGovernmental Organizations (IGOs). An example of such a protection in an international treaty is in Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property protects the names and abbreviations of International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs) against unauthorized registration and use as trademarks. Dispute mechanisms developed by the GNSO for gTLDs need to conform with relevant principles of international law and international conventions and applicable local law. The UDRP was built on trademark law for example. As IGOs often use Article 6ter to prevent the registration as trademarks of an IGO name or abbreviation they cannot then use trademark law to take legal action against a mis-use of a trademark. During the discussions in Copenhagen it was not clear what applicable local laws can be used by IGOs, or Governments on their behalf, to tackle infringements in the offline world - e.g. printed publications or signs that mis-use the names and abbreviations of International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs). I propose asking the ICANN organization, on behalf of this discussion group, to get some expert external legal advice on the following general question: " Separately from any trademark rights, what substantive legal rights (if any) do International interGovernmental Organizations (IGOs) have in their acronyms under specific national laws and/or international law? For instance, are there consumer protection statutes or other causes of action that an IGO can rely on to assert specific legal rights in its acronym?" In getting this legal advice, I would propose that: - any legal opinion should be obtained from a third party, preferably a person or entity that can be regarded by the GNSO Council, the GAC, and the affected parties (ie IGOs) as neutral. - the question and scope of such an enquiry should be agreed by this group and be as specific as possible to ensure it can be provided in a timely fashion and at reasonable cost - e.g. we might want to select a small subset (e.g. 5) of countries for a survey that are representative of the approach in various regions of the world - given that legal advice would be needed from law firms in each country. This advice would then help inform the work of the GNSO Working Group on IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy. Please let me know if the group would like to proceed down this path, and if so how should the question be formulated. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

6 15

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

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Proposed GNSO Council motion on Red Cross names
by James M. Bladel April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

Thank you, Bruce. I will keep this group apprised of any developments. Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 17:24 To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Proposed GNSO Council motion on Red Cross names For information – there is an updated motion on protection of red Cross names following the Council meeting last week: Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 8:04 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find an amended version of the Motion to Initiate Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names that was discussed during our last meeting. Recall that, during our last GNSO Council call on 20 April, the Council agreed to defer this Motion to an electronic vote, in order to allow for certain updates to be made to the text of the motion. Also note that the Council agreed to proceed with an electronic vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. The updated language of the motion has been reviewed and approved by me as its proposer, and Michele and Rubens as its seconders. It includes some minor clarifications received as feedback from the ICRC representatives, but does not include any items that materially changed the scope of the affected strings, or any other items that were not discussed previously in Copenhagen. This email will also serve as notice that, as Council Chair, I am hereby formally providing all Councilors with the requisite minimum 7 days’ advance notice of the electronic vote, in accordance with Section 4.10.2.d. of the GNSO Operating Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf) The 4-day voting period will begin at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 2 May 2017 and close at 23:59 UTC on Saturday 6 May 2017. (Please be reminded that the GNSO Operating Procedures require that electronic voting be an open vote, and its outcome be published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping.) Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair _______________________ Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names - Deferred to electronic vote Submitted by: James Bladel Seconded: Rubens Kuhl, Michele Neylon WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-…<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-…)>); WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2)>) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf)>); WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal”, and “Red Lion & Sun” (referred to as “Scope 1 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2…<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2…)>); WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as “Scope 2 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the “Scope 2 Identifiers” of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement’s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC’s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the 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) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2…<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2…)>); WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf)>), to consider amending the GNSO’s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council’s consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice: RESOLVED, 1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: (a) 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; (b) 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 within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the 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 (c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC’s 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. 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of 30 days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group. 3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion.

1 0

Proposed GNSO Council motion on Red Cross names
by Bruce Tonkin April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

For information – there is an updated motion on protection of red Cross names following the Council meeting last week: Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 8:04 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION FOR ELECTRONIC (EMAIL) VOTE - Initiate Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find an amended version of the Motion to Initiate Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names that was discussed during our last meeting. Recall that, during our last GNSO Council call on 20 April, the Council agreed to defer this Motion to an electronic vote, in order to allow for certain updates to be made to the text of the motion. Also note that the Council agreed to proceed with an electronic vote outside a regularly scheduled Council meeting. The updated language of the motion has been reviewed and approved by me as its proposer, and Michele and Rubens as its seconders. It includes some minor clarifications received as feedback from the ICRC representatives, but does not include any items that materially changed the scope of the affected strings, or any other items that were not discussed previously in Copenhagen. This email will also serve as notice that, as Council Chair, I am hereby formally providing all Councilors with the requisite minimum 7 days’ advance notice of the electronic vote, in accordance with Section 4.10.2.d. of the GNSO Operating Procedures (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf) The 4-day voting period will begin at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday 2 May 2017 and close at 23:59 UTC on Saturday 6 May 2017. (Please be reminded that the GNSO Operating Procedures require that electronic voting be an open vote, and its outcome be published and recorded, with accompanying voter statements, if any, as minutes for purposes of formal record keeping.) Thank you, J. ------------------ James Bladel GNSO Chair _______________________ Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names - Deferred to electronic vote Submitted by: James Bladel Seconded: Rubens Kuhl, Michele Neylon WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-…<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-…)>); WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2)>) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf)>); WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal”, and “Red Lion & Sun” (referred to as “Scope 1 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2…<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2…)>); WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as “Scope 2 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the “Scope 2 Identifiers” of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement’s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC’s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the 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) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2…<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2…)>); WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf)>), to consider amending the GNSO’s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council’s consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice: RESOLVED, 1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: (a) 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; (b) 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 within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the 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 (c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC’s 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. 2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of 30 days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group. 3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion.

1 0

IGO Protections - progress on notification mechanisms
by Jonathan.PASSARO＠oecd.org April 25, 2017

April 25, 2017

Dear Bruce, Thank you once again for leading the discussions in Copenhagen in an effort to resolve the outstanding issue of protection of IGO acronyms at the second level. I am writing to follow up with you on progress since that time. In particular, I would be grateful if you could let us know what steps ICANN has taken regarding the notification mechanisms for both IGOs and prospective registrants. Best regards, Jon [logo_mail_uk]<http://www.oecd.org/> Jonathan Passaro Legal Adviser Directorate for Legal Affairs 2, rue André Pascal - 75775 Paris Cedex 16 Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 73 jonathan.passaro(a)oecd.org<mailto:jonathan.passaro@oecd.org> || www.oecd.org/legal<http://www.oecd.org/legal>

2 1

GNSO Proposed MOTION: Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names
by Bruce Tonkin April 10, 2017

April 10, 2017

For info: From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017 9:12 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION: Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross Names Councilors – Attached and copied below, please find a motion for consideration during our 20 APR meeting, to invoke the process to amend the PDP recommendations associated with Red Cross names. Additionally, Staff has prepared a Briefing Paper on how this amendment process works, and this is also attached. Thank you, J. ------------------------------------------------ DRAFT GNSO COUNCIL RESOLUTION – INITIATION OF POLICY AMENDMENT PROCESS ON SPECIFIC RED CROSS NAMES WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-…) WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf) WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO’s PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal”, and “Red Lion & Sun” (referred to as “Scope 1 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2…) WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as “Scope 2 Identifiers” by the PDP Working Group); WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the “Scope 2 Identifiers” of the Movement; WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted: (1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement’s identifiers in the domain name system (DNS); (2) The GAC’s rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the 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) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf ); (4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and (5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite and specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%2…) and WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf) to consider amending the GNSO’s approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report: a. 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; b. 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 c. In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as the GAC’s 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. 1. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 for public comment, for a period of [30] days commencing from the date of the first meeting of the reconvened PDP Working Group. 1. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment. 1. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion.

1 0