- Discussion-igo-rc - lists.icann.org

Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House - Monday, 6 March 2017 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC
by Terri Agnew Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-02-22-en[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Monday, 6 March 2017 - 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC The Policy Development Support Team is pleased to announce two sessions of the Pre-ICANN58 Policy Open House on Monday, 6 March 2017 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC. The Policy Open House builds on the previous Policy Update Webinar and incorporates more interaction. The new format will feature: · Decreased Duration | Two 60-minute sessions, rather than two 90-minute briefings · Interactive Format | A question and answer exchange with the Policy Team · Preparatory Materials | The Pre-ICANN58 Policy Report and Generic Names Supporting Organization Policy Development Process Briefings will be published one week prior to the open house This improved structure will allow the ICANN community to ask questions about policy and advice development work taking place at ICANN58. The Policy Team also welcomes questions through the upcoming registration form and via email at policyinfo(a)icann.org <mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> . Registration begins on Monday, 27 February 2017. The open house will run in English and will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. Recordings of the sessions will be made available here[icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> . The Policy Team looks forward to assisting the ICANN community prepare for ICANN58! --------------- David A. Olive Senior Vice President | Policy Development Support Managing Director ICANN Regional Headquarters | Istanbul <mailto:david.olive@icann.org> david.olive(a)icann.org ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers | Hakki Yeten Caddesi | Selenium Plaza | No:10/C K:10 | 34349 | Fulya | Besiktas | Istanbul Mobile +1. 202.341.3611 | Mobile +90.533.341.6550 | Direct Line +90.212.999.6212

1 0

Meeting Invitation: First call on Red Cross identifier protections on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear all, The first call on Red Cross identifier protections will take place on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC for two hours. 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET, (Tuesday 28 Feb) 07:00 AEDT For other times: http://tinyurl.com/j3rn8u9 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://participate.icann.org/crp For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IGO RC Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-48030674 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-49412807 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

First call on Red Cross identifier protections
by ICANN Policy Calendar Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear all, The first call on Red Cross identifier protections will take place on Monday 27 February 2017 at 20:00 UTC. 12:00 PST, 15:00 EST, 20:00 London, 21:00 CET, (Tuesday 28 Feb) 07:00 AEDT For other times: http://tinyurl.com/j3rn8u9 Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://participate.icann.org/crp For those of you using the Adobe Connect audio, you may do so by activating your computer microphone via the Adobe room (Using a headset is preferable here). Please confirm your dial-out requests to GNSO Secretariats gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> ______________________________________________________________________ Participant passcode: IGO RC Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 EGYPT 0800000-9029 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-48030674 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-49412807 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 VIETNAM 120-11751 Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie

1 0

Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent
by Mary Wong Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear Jorge, Thank you for your question. You are correct that staff did not add your comments to the actual documents. One reason was that we thought (perhaps erroneously) it would be better for the documents to be uploaded and viewed “as is” (i.e. as received). I’d therefore hoped that, by referring to your specific comments in my email relating to the uploads, list participants will be able to read them in conjunction with the proffered edits as this group continues its discussions. In addition, the suggestions contained in the edited documents were for specific textual changes whereas your comments seemed to be of a more general nature inviting further discussions among the group. As such, staff did not feel it was necessarily appropriate for us to decide where and how to insert them into the documents. However, I am happy to incorporate them if you wish, with apologies for not doing so before this. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch> Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, "tom(a)acig.com.au" <tom(a)acig.com.au>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Mary, Could you please clarify whether you have included my suggestions in the edited versions? If not, could you clarify why? They are quite straightforward and fact-based. As a reminder: == Document “Outline of proposed process…”: · The commitment of both the GAC and GNSO to respect any agreed outcomes, without prejudice to internal procedures, should probably be clearer. I don’t think we would like to engage in a time-consuming process, if that commitment is not there. · It should be clear that ICANN policy (both existing and future) on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. · We expect that the IGOs and the ICRC will designate representatives to participate in both work tracks. Switzerland is available for participating on both tracks too (not only the Red Cross one) Both “Draft problem statement” documents: · The existing temporary protections both for IGOs and ICRC should be identified and summarized in the briefings. They should be maintained in all cases, until an agreed satisfactory solution is found. · The “problem” statement in both documents (with the header “the problem” in both docs) includes the proviso that “where practicable, any protection mechanism to be developed should take advantage of similar mechanisms…” – while this may be a consideration to be made, it is not part of the problem as such, and should be removed from the “problem statement” Under the IGO document, “the objective” statement establishes the condition that solutions should “be based on applicable international law principles” – while we agree that international law, where existing, is important and has to be abided to, we should not forget, as said above, that ICANN policy on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. == Thanks and regards Jorge Von: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Montag, 6. Februar 2017 23:28 An: Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>; Discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org Betreff: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear all, Please be informed that the edited versions of both Problem Statements that were circulated by Tom reflecting the comments of the US government, the Red Cross movement representatives, and the IGO representatives, have now been uploaded to the Discussion Group wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. As the stated intention when this Discussion Group was first set up was that the proposed facilitated discussions should be based on mutually agreed materials – including a brief Problem Statement and separate Briefing Papers for each topic – please continue to use this list to comment on the documents and suggestions made (including Jorge’s, sent by Tom, reproduced below). If I may, staff would like to offer the following notes and questions, italicized for your easy reference and review (all references to page numbers are to the marked-up versions sent by Tom): On the Problem Statement relating to IGO acronym protections – · Page 1 (bottom) – Ashley, although some additions were made in red that presumably were to accompany the part you moved up to be the last sentence of the former section (“The Objective”), these seem to show up only incompletely in a clean version. Please let me know if you intended for all the red text at the bottom of page 1 to be included in the last sentence in the section above. · Page 3 (first paragraph, “The Issue in Context”) – the GNSO PDP Final Report was published in November 2013, and formal notification (as required by the ICANN Bylaws) sent to the GAC on 16 December 2013 (not January 2014). Staff therefore respectfully suggests that the date be noted here as November 2013. · Page 3 (second paragraph) – although ICANN staff were present and participated as advisors and subject matter experts for the IGO Small Group discussions, staff were not involved as representatives of either the GAC, GNSO or IGOs. As such, we respectfully suggest that the part of the sentence that reads “… discussions in which representatives of IGOs, the GAC, the ICANN Board and ICANN Staff actively participated” be reworded to say “discussions in which representatives of IGOs, the GAC and the Board participated, facilitated by ICANN staff”. On the Problem Statement relating to Red Cross identifier protections – · The number of Red Cross National Societies - The Red Cross has, indeed, notified ICANN that there are now 190 National Societies; in her presentation to the GNSO Council in April 2016, this was also mentioned by Ms. Charlotte Lindsey Curtet (noting that the 190th was approved and admitted in December 2015: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/curtet-to-gnso-council-14apr16-en.…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_corr…>. The GAC advice specifically mentioning the Red Cross National Societies (March 2014 in the Singapore Communique; June 2014 in the London Communique; and October 2014 in the Los Angeles Communique) and the ICANN Board resolution granting interim protection to Red Cross National Society names (again, preceding the admission of the 190th National Society into the movement) expressly provide for the then-189 National Societies. Similarly, the GNSO’s PDP recommendations on this point – dating from November 2013 and based on GAC advice up to that date – also mention 189 Red Cross National Societies. It may therefore be helpful if the National Society names that the facilitated discussions will focus on can be clarified. · The languages for which permanent protection for the National Society names is being sought – the current suggested text is “in relevant national languages”; the GAC advice is formulated as “in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin” and reflected in the GNSO PDP as “in English, as well as in their respective national languages”. It may be that there is no substantive difference between the current text and what is in the GAC advice and GNSO PDP recommendations, but we thought we ought to mention this for precision purposes. · Acronyms of the international Red Cross movement – the GAC advice had sought “the same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out … for the protection of acronyms of IGOs” for the following four acronyms: ICRC, CICR, IFRC, FICR (Durban Communique, July 2013), which did not include MKKK. The GNSO PDP recommendations were for 90-days Claims Notification for the four acronyms listed by the GAC plus MKKK. It may therefore be helpful if the exact acronyms under discussion for protection as being the most commonly used Red Cross acronyms can also be clarified. I hope the above notes are helpful in your continuing discussions. Please let me know if there are additional corrections, inaccuracies or updates. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>> Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 04:53 To: "Discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear All Please see comments below from Switzerland concerning the circulated briefs. These should be read in conjunction with Jorge's e-mail to this list of 17 January. At this point there are no further comments from GAC members on the circulated materials. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au[acig.com.au]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.acig.com.au_&d=DwMF…> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee. From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 1:50 AM To: Thomas Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>" <gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Subject: AW: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Tom, and dear all, Thank you very much for sharing this important information with the GAC. We are hopeful that this facilitation processes may bear a fruitful and acceptable result for all interested parties, and be consistent with the need, expressed so many times by the GAC, to convey an appropriate protection to IGO and Red Cross names and acronyms. On the documents circulated we would like to make the following comments: Document “Outline of proposed process…”: · The commitment of both the GAC and GNSO to respect any agreed outcomes, without prejudice to internal procedures, should probably be clearer. I don’t think we would like to engage in a time-consuming process, if that commitment is not there. · It should be clear that ICANN policy (both existing and future) on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. · We expect that the IGOs and the ICRC will designate representatives to participate in both work tracks. Switzerland is available for participating on both tracks too (not only the Red Cross one) Both “Draft problem statement” documents: · The existing temporary protections both for IGOs and ICRC should be identified and summarized in the briefings. They should be maintained in all cases, until an agreed satisfactory solution is found. · The “problem” statement in both documents (with the header “the problem” in both docs) includes the proviso that “where practicable, any protection mechanism to be developed should take advantage of similar mechanisms…” – while this may be a consideration to be made, it is not part of the problem as such, and should be removed from the “problem statement” Under the IGO document, “the objective” statement establishes the condition that solutions should “be based on applicable international law principles” – while we agree that international law, where existing, is important and has to be abided to, we should not forget, as said above, that ICANN policy on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. In addition to these comments, we would like to defer to the detailed comments the IGOs and the ICRC may consider appropriate to make on the three documents. With kind regards Jorge Cancio Von: gac-bounces(a)gac.icann.org<mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org> [mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tom Dale Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 21:44 An: gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org> Betreff: [GAC] GAC: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear GAC Action Requested by GAC Chair: Please review the attached materials prepared by ICANN re protections for Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, and respond to the GAC list with any comments by cob 1 February 2017. Background The ICANN Board has asked former Board member Bruce Tonkin to facilitate a discussion getween the GAC and the GNSO to try to resolve differences on protections for names and acronyms of IGOs and the Red Crescent Red Crescent. These are being treated as separate issues. It is likely that there will be meetings with all parties at the Copenhagen meeting but no details have been finalised. The attached briefings have been prepared by ICANN GNSO policy staff to assist with discussions. The GAC Chair has asked that you review these and provide any comment to the GAC list by 1 February. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au[acig.com.au]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.acig.com.au_&d=DwMF…> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

4 4

CONFIRMING date and time for first call on Red Cross identifier protections
by Mary Wong Feb. 21, 2017

Feb. 21, 2017

Dear all, Following consultation with Bruce (the group’s designated facilitator) and in view of the voting results and preferences from the Doodle poll, staff will go ahead and organize the first call on the issue of Red Cross identifier protections for Monday 27 February, at 2000 UTC, for 2 hours. As agreed during the initial discussions about this process, the call will be recorded and transcribed. We hope that this will allow those who are not able to attend to follow up as well as ensure transparency of the process to the community. Please watch for a calendar invitation shortly, and a proposed agenda. Please also note that the topic for this call is protection for the remaining requested Red Cross identfiers only. Thanks and cheers Mary and Olof From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 20, 2017 at 17:14 To: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Cc: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Doodle poll to schedule first call on Red Cross protections recommendations Hello again all - yes, please fill (or refill, if your schedule has changed) in the doodle poll for next week: 27 February, 28 February or 1 March. The time (2000 UTC) remains the same. Thank you all and once again please accept my apologies for the mistake in dates. Cheers Mary Sent from a mobile phone, sorry for any errors and brevity. On Feb 20, 2017, at 16:48, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: I’m not sure I understand. Am I supposed to respond to the Doodle as if it were for the 27-29 rather than the 20-22? 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: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 3:49 PM To: Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch> Cc: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Doodle poll to schedule first call on Red Cross protections recommendations Hello all and thanks to Thomas and Petter for pointing out the dates problem! I confirm we'd intended to ask about next week (27, 28 February or 1 March) so for those who originally filled on their availability based on this week, may I trouble you to do the poll again? As Petter noted, the most popular slot so far is Tuesday 28 February at 2000 UTC. I am so sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. Cheers Mary Sent from a mobile phone, sorry for any errors and brevity. On Feb 20, 2017, at 15:27, "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>> wrote: Dear Mary Thank you very much for your message of last Friday. Just one comment: while you speak of a call in the week commencing 27 Feb, the doodle calendar is about 20-22 Feb. So I filled out the doodle assuming that it was about Mon 27 Feb to Wed 1st of March. However, I am not sure whether everybody is on the same page with regard to the dates here. So thank you for clarifying… Best regards Thomas Von: discussion-igo-rc-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Februar 2017 00:59 An: discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Betreff: [Discussion-igo-rc] Doodle poll to schedule first call on Red Cross protections recommendations Dear all, On the last GAC-GNSO leadership call, it was agreed that, if possible, a call should be held before ICANN58 begins, to commence the facilitated dialogue on the topic of Red Cross protections. Following our ascertainment of designated facilitator Bruce Tonkin’s availability, staff has set up a Doodle poll for three possible slots for a 2-hour call at 20.00 UTC in the week commencing 27 February 2017. If you are to participate in the discussion concerning Red Cross protections, please be so kind as to fill out your availability for those slots on the poll here: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/c2qeeqmdtu8v6txm[icannorg.doodle.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_po…>. The poll was set up using US Eastern time, but it should automatically reset to your time zone (please consult this website resource if you need to perform time zone conversions: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html)[timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.timeanddate.com_wo…>. Please let me know if you have any difficulty with the poll as we are currently testing a new beta version of Doodle. Please note: as we have participants in multiple locations ranging from the US West and East Coasts to Europe and Australia, it is virtually impossible to find a time that will work for everyone. We have therefore tried for a time that perhaps can be best described as “not ridiculously awful” for most; we hope you understand. As soon as we have responses from a substantial number of likely participants, we will confirm the call as well as its timing, date and call details. We will also assist Bruce with a proposed agenda to be circulated before the call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com_email-2Dsig…> Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13918 - Release Date: 02/09/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

1 0

Doodle poll to schedule first call on Red Cross protections recommendations
by Mary Wong Feb. 20, 2017

Feb. 20, 2017

Dear all, On the last GAC-GNSO leadership call, it was agreed that, if possible, a call should be held before ICANN58 begins, to commence the facilitated dialogue on the topic of Red Cross protections. Following our ascertainment of designated facilitator Bruce Tonkin’s availability, staff has set up a Doodle poll for three possible slots for a 2-hour call at 20.00 UTC in the week commencing 27 February 2017. If you are to participate in the discussion concerning Red Cross protections, please be so kind as to fill out your availability for those slots on the poll here: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/c2qeeqmdtu8v6txm. The poll was set up using US Eastern time, but it should automatically reset to your time zone (please consult this website resource if you need to perform time zone conversions: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html) Please let me know if you have any difficulty with the poll as we are currently testing a new beta version of Doodle. Please note: as we have participants in multiple locations ranging from the US West and East Coasts to Europe and Australia, it is virtually impossible to find a time that will work for everyone. We have therefore tried for a time that perhaps can be best described as “not ridiculously awful” for most; we hope you understand. As soon as we have responses from a substantial number of likely participants, we will confirm the call as well as its timing, date and call details. We will also assist Bruce with a proposed agenda to be circulated before the call. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

6 7

Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent - Clarifications from the ICRC/Red Cross and Red Crescent
by Stephane Hankins Feb. 17, 2017

Feb. 17, 2017

Dear Mary, dear Tom, Dear all, Further to Mary's recent message soliciting clarifications on the list of Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers for which permanent protections are requested, as per the advice provided by the GAC in its past Communiqués to ICANN's Board, please find below our responses to Mary's questions. We are also copying below our last messages (30 january 2015 and 4 march 2016) in response to ealier issues raised regarding the list of identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, as included under Specification 5 of the Model Registry Agreement. quote from Mary's message On the Problem Statement relating to Red Cross identifier protections – · The number of Red Cross National Societies - The Red Cross has, indeed, notified ICANN that there are now 190 National Societies; in her presentation to the GNSO Council in April 2016, this was also mentioned by Ms. Charlotte Lindsey Curtet (noting that the 190th was approved and admitted in December 2015: https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/curtet-to-gnso-council-14apr16-en.…) . The GAC advice specifically mentioning the Red Cross National Societies (March 2014 in the Singapore Communique; June 2014 in the London Communique; and October 2014 in the Los Angeles Communique) and the ICANN Board resolution granting interim protection to Red Cross National Society names (again, preceding the admission of the 190th National Society into the movement) expressly provide for the then-189 National Societies. Similarly, the GNSO’s PDP recommendations on this point – dating from November 2013 and based on GAC advice up to that date – also mention 189 Red Cross National Societies. It may therefore be helpful if the National Society names that the facilitated discussions will focus on can be clarified. Response (ICRC): (1) The current request is for the confirmation as permanent of the protections currently recognized to the identifiers of the respective components of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter Movement), including the names of the 190 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies recognized within the Movement 1) in English and 2) in the official language or languages (and alphabets/fonts) of their respective State of origin. It is correct that the number of National Societies referenced in the GAC's past communiqués (Singapore, 2014; London, 2014; Los Angeles, 2014) was 189 and that this number has since increased following the recognition of the Tuvalu Red Cross as the 190th National Society as a component of the Movement (effective 18 November 2015). Should hence be added to the list the names "Tuvalu Red Cross" and "Tuvalu Red Cross Society". For clarity, It should be noted that the recognition of new National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is not a very common occurrence and follows a formal process defined in the Movement's regulatory framework. There can only one National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society in any given State and only States that party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions are enabled to set up a National Society. Only very few States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (6 out of 196 to date) have not yet created a National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society. We had in the past submitted our responses to series of remaining questions pertaining to the list of National Societies' names presently included in the list of Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers included in Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement (most of a technical nature linked to the font or to the length of certain names proposed for inclusion on the list or protected names ). We re attaching below our last messages (of 30 January 2015 and 4 March 2016) in this regard and remain available to respond to any remaining questions. We would also be available to discuss any remaining issues in a Telephone Conference with ICANN Staff in advance of the Copenhagen Meeting and/or to meet with concerned ICANN Staff in Copenhagen if this may assist further in finalizing the list. · The languages for which permanent protection for the National Society names is being sought – the current suggested text is “in relevant national languages”; the GAC advice is formulated as “in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin” and reflected in the GNSO PDP as “in English, as well as in their respective national languages”. It may be that there is no substantive difference between the current text and what is in the GAC advice and GNSO PDP recommendations, but we thought we ought to mention this for precision purposes. Response (ICRC): We confirm that there is no substantive difference between the formulations “in relevant national languages “ and "in English and the official languages of their respective States of origin”. As noted above, the request is for permanent protections to be accorded to the names of National Societies both in English and in the official languages (and alphabets/fonts, as applicable) of each National Society's State of origin. · Acronyms of the international Red Cross movement – the GAC advice had sought “the same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out … for the protection of acronyms of IGOs” for the following four acronyms: ICRC, CICR, IFRC, FICR (Durban Communique, July 2013), which did not include MKKK. The GNSO PDP recommendations were for 90-days Claims Notification for the four acronyms listed by the GAC plus MKKK. It may therefore be helpful if the exact acronyms under discussion for protection as being the most commonly used Red Cross acronyms can also be clarified. Response (ICRC): The acronyms/initials solicited for permanent protection concern the most usual acronyms of the two international organizations within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, namely the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC - in English; CICR - in French; and MKKK - in Russian) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC - in English; FICR - in French). We remain available to answer any remaining issues that would be raised. We shall be available to meet with concerned ICANN Staff in Copenhagen in order to finalize the list, as this may represent the easiest option forward. With best regards, Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 16/02/2017 19:31 ----- A : Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org> De : Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC Date : 04/03/2016 13:47 Cc : Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC@ICRC, Nicola Ann Hardwick/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC@ICRC Objet : DNS labels associated with the Red Cross and Red Crescent Dear Cyrus, dear Mary, (1) I hope this message finds you well. Further to our past exchanges and as I am hoping we may be able to catch up during ICANN's Marrakesh meeting in the next days, I am sending you our responses to Cyrus' last letter and to his queries relating to the list of DNS labels associated with the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names, and thus, as these are currently included and reflected under Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement. (2) Firstly, I would like to reiterate here our previous recommendation that, for greater clarity, the titles of the two tables/lists of Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names included under Specification 5 be revised as follows: (List 1) International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - Names of the distinctive emblems protected under international humanitarian law and of related designations (in substitution to the current title: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Names) (List 2) International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – Names and identifiers of Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations (in substitution to the current title: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) As the titles currently stand, they do not properly reflect or explicate the lists of strings listed thereunder. (3) Second, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that, since the list of DNS labels was prepared, a new National Society has been recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and that its denomination requires to be added to the list of names and identifiers of Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations, namely the Tuvalu Red Cross Society (which was recognized as a component of the Movement in November 2015). Should hence be added to the list protected names and DNA labels the names: - "Tuvalu Red Cross" - "Tuvalu Red Cross Society" (4) Below our responses to Cyrus' questions raised in his letter of 19 May 2015: ICRC (Red Cross and Red Crescent) response to ICANN's Letter of 19 May 2015 ICANN letter ICRC (Red Cross and Red Crescent) response 1. The names of RCRC National Societies are eligible for protection in English as directed by the NGPC’s resolution, which instructed staff to “provide temporary protections for the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, as identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2014-03-27-RCRC while the GAC, GNSO, Board, and ICANN community continue to actively work on resolving the differences in the advice from the GAC and the GNSO policy recommendations on the scope of protections for the RCRC names.” The GAC advice referenced in the NGPC’s resolution calls for protections of “the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin.” We will direct registry operators to reserve these labels. As explained in our message of 21 November 2015, two or more names were submitted for protection in instances where a National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society makes wide usage of a usual name or names in addition to its official name (we refer to the official name as that foreseen, in principle, in a National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society’s national law or decree of recognition or in its statutory base instruments). For example, the official name of the Australian Red Cross Society includes the word “Society”, but is commonly known as the “Australian Red Cross”. Similarly, the American National Red Cross uses and is widely known as the “American Red Cross”. Accordingly, we provided two or more names for inclusion in the list of protected strings, where this was requested by the National Society concerned. 2. Some of the labels on the revised list are too long for the DNS. Refer to lines 72 – 75, 78, 79, 559, and 560 for those labels that cannot be reserved because they are too long. We take note that some of the labels on the revised list are too long for the DNS. We propose to delete labels are too long for the DNS. 3. The list of DNS labels includes some acronyms for RCRC National Society names. As noted above in #1, the NGPC resolution calls for protection of “the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin,” but does not call for protection of the acronyms corresponding to the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Society Names. Refer to lines 379, 380, 531, 532, 872, 873, 928, 944, 975, 976, 985, and 1011 for those labels that appear to represent acronyms that are not eligible for reservation. We take note of this point and agree to the deletion of DNS labels corresponding to, or composed of, acronyms or initials of the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations – i.e. under lines 379, 380, 531, 532, 872, 873, 928, 944, 975, 976, 985, and 1011. 4. The revised list of DNS labels includes International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement names outside the scope of what the NGPC directed to be reserved pursuant to NGPC Resolution 2012.11.26.NG03. Refer to lines 144, 145, 319 – 324, 377, 378, 383, 384, 461, 462, 514 – 516, 665, 666, 694, 695, 714, 715, 742, 743, 862, 863, 906, 907, 1008, 1009, and 1010. Please clarify the basis for directing registry operators to protect these labels. Please delete the labels in lines 144, 145, 319 – 324, 377, 378, 383, 384, 461, 462, 514 – 516, 665, 666, 694, 695, 714, 715, 742, 743, 862, 863, 906, 907, and 1008. However, we believe that the labels included in lines 1009 and 1010 should be kept, as they correspond to the full name of the Uzbek Red Crescent Society in Russian, as a recognized regional language of the State. 5. The revised list of DNS includes some labels where the characters do not render properly in the Word document. Refer to line 622. Please send these labels in a csv file so that we may review the proposed labels. Unfortunately, we could not convert the file under line 622 into csv-format either. We suggest to drop this label. 6. For some RCRC National Society names on the revised list, more than one English language version of the official name of the National Society is on the list. Refer to lines 132 – 135, 441 – 444, 655 – 658, 724 – 727, 744 – 747, 770 – 773, 808 – 811, 828 – 835, 836 – 839, 844 – 847, 856 – 859, 866 – 871, 874 – 877, 886 – 889, 894 – 897, 961 – 964, 994 – 997, 998 – 1001, 1026 – 1029, 1038 – 1041, and 1042 – 1045. As noted above in #1, the NGPC resolution calls for protection of “the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin.” Please advise which one of the English language labels should be reserved. See comment under point 1. Where several labels are proposed, these corresponds to either the official name of the National Society (as defined in the latter’s national law of recognition) or to the usual or widely used name or names of the National Society. The inclusion of both official and usual names does not, in our understanding contradict the terms of the NGPC resolution. The latter does not refer to the “official” name of National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies, but rather to their protection in the official languages of their respective States of origin. 7. Please confirm how you propose to treat “the” when it is part of the official name of the RCRC National Society name. For example, the official name of the Red Cross National Society in Thailand is “The Thai Red Cross Society.” When creating the DNS labels, should corresponding DNS labels be: “the-thai-red-cross-society” and “thethairedcrosssociety”? Or, should the DNS labels include the previous two labels in addition to “thai-red-cross-society” and “thairedcrosssociety”? We would prefer if both the versions, with and without the word “the”, could be included (e.g., “the-thai-red-cross-society” and “thai-red-cross-society”). We hope this will allow to resolve the outstanding questions and look forward to the opportunity to meet with you in the coming days. With kind regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 -----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 16/02/2017 19:22 ----- A : Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> De : Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC Date : 30/01/2015 15:44 Cc : Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org>, christopher.rassi(a)ifrc.org, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC@ICRC, Katie Shea/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC@ICRC Objet : Lists of Red Cross and Red Crescent names included in Specification 5 - some recommendations for revision Dear Mary, We hope this message finds you well. We have taken due note of the inclusion of the list of Red Cross and Red Crescent names under Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement as it is now available online and would like to thank you and your colleagues for your precious assistance. After a careful review of the list placed online, we would like to draw your attention however to several omissions and are attaching below a revised listing in which - different National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society names have been added or corrected (the name of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was also missing in several UN languages); - the names of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have been systematically inserted in English. This is in accordance with the NGPC's Resolution adopted in Los Angeles on 12 October 2014 to provide temporary protections for the Red Cross/Red Crescent names identified in the GAC's Singapore Communiqué (i.e. to permanently protect from unauthorized used the terms associated with the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement [and that] the protections should [...] include "the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, in English and the official languages of their respective states of origin," and 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"). For the sake of clarity, we also propose to change the titles of the two tables of Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names included under Specification 5 to - (List 1) International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - Names of the dictinctive emblems protected under international humanitarian law and of related designations (in replacement of the current title: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Names) - (List 2) International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – Names and identifiers of Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations (in replacement of the current title: International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement - International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (3) For a full overview of our proposed revisions, we are attaching below our revised list (one with mark-up and highlighting our revisions, the other without): Please do let us know if you would require any additional explanations. We will be attending the upcoming ICANN meeting in Singapore and would be available to discuss this further with you as might be required. With best wishes in your preparations for the Singapore Meeting and kind regards, Stéphane and Chris Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 Email: shankins(a)icrc.org Christopher M. Rassi Senior Legal Officer International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Chemin des Crêts, 17 |1209 Petit Saconnex |Geneva|Switzerland Tel. +41 (0)22 730 4536 | Fax +41 (0)22 733 0395 | E.mail: christopher.rassi(a)ifrc.org end of message =============================================================================== 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. ===============================================================================

1 0

Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent
by Tom Dale Feb. 6, 2017

Feb. 6, 2017

Dear All Please see comments below from Switzerland concerning the circulated briefs. These should be read in conjunction with Jorge's e-mail to this list of 17 January. At this point there are no further comments from GAC members on the circulated materials. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee. From: "Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio(a)bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 1:50 AM To: Thomas Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>" <gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>> Subject: AW: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Tom, and dear all, Thank you very much for sharing this important information with the GAC. We are hopeful that this facilitation processes may bear a fruitful and acceptable result for all interested parties, and be consistent with the need, expressed so many times by the GAC, to convey an appropriate protection to IGO and Red Cross names and acronyms. On the documents circulated we would like to make the following comments: Document “Outline of proposed process…”: · The commitment of both the GAC and GNSO to respect any agreed outcomes, without prejudice to internal procedures, should probably be clearer. I don’t think we would like to engage in a time-consuming process, if that commitment is not there. · It should be clear that ICANN policy (both existing and future) on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. · We expect that the IGOs and the ICRC will designate representatives to participate in both work tracks. Switzerland is available for participating on both tracks too (not only the Red Cross one) Both “Draft problem statement” documents: · The existing temporary protections both for IGOs and ICRC should be identified and summarized in the briefings. They should be maintained in all cases, until an agreed satisfactory solution is found. · The “problem” statement in both documents (with the header “the problem” in both docs) includes the proviso that “where practicable, any protection mechanism to be developed should take advantage of similar mechanisms…” – while this may be a consideration to be made, it is not part of the problem as such, and should be removed from the “problem statement” Under the IGO document, “the objective” statement establishes the condition that solutions should “be based on applicable international law principles” – while we agree that international law, where existing, is important and has to be abided to, we should not forget, as said above, that ICANN policy on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is logically bound to it as far as applicable. In addition to these comments, we would like to defer to the detailed comments the IGOs and the ICRC may consider appropriate to make on the three documents. With kind regards Jorge Cancio Von: gac-bounces(a)gac.icann.org<mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org> [mailto:gac-bounces@gac.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tom Dale Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 21:44 An: gac(a)icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org> Betreff: [GAC] GAC: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear GAC Action Requested by GAC Chair: Please review the attached materials prepared by ICANN re protections for Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, and respond to the GAC list with any comments by cob 1 February 2017. Background The ICANN Board has asked former Board member Bruce Tonkin to facilitate a discussion getween the GAC and the GNSO to try to resolve differences on protections for names and acronyms of IGOs and the Red Crescent Red Crescent. These are being treated as separate issues. It is likely that there will be meetings with all parties at the Copenhagen meeting but no details have been finalised. The attached briefings have been prepared by ICANN GNSO policy staff to assist with discussions. The GAC Chair has asked that you review these and provide any comment to the GAC list by 1 February. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

3 2

Updated list of Discussion Group participants (Re: ICRC / RED CROSS)
by Mary Wong Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Dear all, Please note that several new participants have been added to this Discussion Group at the request either of the GAC or the GNSO. They are: · Charlotte Lindsey Curtet and Stephane Hankins (International Committee of the Red Cross) · Brian Beckham (WIPO) · Jonathan Passaro (OECD) · Thomas Rickert (chair, 2012-2013 GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Protections) · Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth (co-chairs, GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Curative Rights) · Carlos Raul Gutierrez (GNSO liaison to the GAC) You can find the updated list of participants here: https://community.icann.org/x/hoPRAw. For the benefit of those new to this Discussion Group, you may wish to note that several documents had been circulated previously – these are the proposed Process Framework outlining the set up and scope of the facilitated discussions and initial draft Problem Statements. They have all been posted to the wiki space, at https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. The comments and edits proposed by Donna concerning the draft Red Cross Problem Statement have also been posted to the same page. Further documents – including draft Briefing Documents currently in preparation – will be posted as they are circulated to this group. Staff will be in contact again shortly to confirm a time and date for the first facilitated discussion on the topic of Red Cross protections, which has been proposed for mid/late February. We will also try to confirm the two proposed slots for discussion on both topics at ICANN58 as soon as we can. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 12:39 To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: ICRC / RED CROSS Colleagues Good afternoon. I had a constructive dialogue with the ICRC (Charlotte Lindsey Curtet) early this morning. She was pleased that the facilitated discussions are moving ahead and that their issues (the protection of National ICRC /Red Cross Society Names) may well be on a separate track from the wider IGO protection issue (they only have five acronyms). She noted that Mark Carvell has kindly submitted her name and that of her colleague (Stephane Hawkins) to join the discussion list. Charlotte intends to come to Copenhagen for relevant disucssions there though hopes there will be a dialogue before that. Many regards Nigel From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 31 January 2017 18:10 To: "discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc(a)icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org<mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org>> Subject: ICRC / RED CROSS Colleagues Good morning; am meeting ICRC (Charlotte Lindsey Curtet) tomorrow. Will be in listening mode but will be able to ascertain whom they will be sending to Copenhagen for the meeting planned there. Best Nigel Nigel Hickson VP; UN and IGO Engagement Geneva Mobile: +41 79 951 9625 Twitter: @njhickson

2 1

Draft Problem Statement: Suggested edits from IGOs and Red Cross
by Tom Dale Feb. 1, 2017

Feb. 1, 2017

Dear all Please find attached: * Suggested edits from IGOs and the United States for the IGO Problem Statement * Suggested edits from International Committee of the Red Cross and the United States for the Red Cross Problem Statement * A summary of GAC advice on Red Cross Red Crescent acronyms and names protections (prepared by International Committee of the Red Cross).. Regards Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve :: innovate Cell: + 61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

2 1