Phil, As to the question of outreach efforts of the Curative RPM Working Group you co-chair, as has been made clear on numerous occasions, and as was noted in our comments on that Initial Report<https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/m...>: “It is recalled here that, over deemed ‘consensus’, IGOs were forced to argue for inclusion of a ‘Minority Statement’ in a prior Working Group effort on so-called preventative IGO protection. See in particular pages 6 and 7 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf.” As has been noted on a number of occasions, this background informed a decision vis-à-vis (not) participating as members of the current Curative RPM Working Group. Regarding the suggestion that members of the GNSO have been excluded from good-faith discussions on this topic, I would refer you again to the attached email. Finally, note that ICANN’s Bylaws and Core Values indicate that the concerns and interests of entities most affected, here IGOs, should be taken into account in policy development processes. The fact that these discussions continue suggest that this has not been adequately done. Regards, Brian From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 4:31 PM To: James M. Bladel; Bruce Tonkin; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org; Beckham, Brian Subject: RE: [Discussion-igo-rc] Example of laws on international orgs Thank you for your intervention, James. Speaking for myself, while I share your concern “that some of these talks are closely resembling topic deliberations, or a decisional conversation”, in regard to any suggestion that this informal and non-official conversation should be fed “back in to the ongoing Curative Rights PDP” I must take the position that our WG should not take any official notice of any of this, and that maintaining this stance is fundamental if we are to safeguard the transparency and integrity of the policy development process. To update all on the status of the IGO CRP WG, we have completed our review of all substantive comments received on our Initial Report and we are presently discussing whether any new facts or arguments brought to our attention merit adjusting the recommendations in our Final Report. There is a prescribed process for the operation of WGs and allowing any party, including this discussion group, to provide additional input after the comment period has closed would be highly irregular and unfair to all member of the ICANN community who would not be afforded a similar opportunity for additional input. So far I have no observed no consensus within this group that our WG should consider any specific recommendation for a CRP based on name and acronym protections established by certain nations outside the trademark law system, but if we were asked to consider such a proposal then the only fair way to do so would be to open a new comment period in which the entire community could participate. I know of no precedent for or means of taking that unusual step but shall look to Council leadership for guidance should the need to address such a request arise. So far as this discussion goes, my reading is that Bruce’s suggestion to consider the retention of a new legal expert to investigate whether there are national laws apart from trademark law that might provide a basis for establishment of a new and parallel CRP for IGOs has so far not garnered enthusiastic support from the IGOs participating in this discussion, although they have made clear that they wish to have a significant degree of input into selection of an expert and design of the inquiry if it goes forward. I continue to have a high degree of concern about ICANN setting down the path of establishing alternative dispute resolution procedures beyond the existing trademark-related UDRP and URS as this could set the precedent for ICANN becoming a super-legislature for the DNS and establishing alternative legal rights an adjudication processes on a wide variety of subjects at the request of aggrieved parties dissatisfied with the application of existing national laws and international treaties to Internet-related disputes. That said, if this discussion group ever decides to proceed with the hiring of a new legal expert for such study, and if Council leadership asks the WG to substantially delay the delivery of our Final Report so that we may consider the results of such inquiry, we shall certainly give that request all due consideration. As to the anecdotal notice that a few nations have some statutes providing legal protections to international organizations, it is unclear to me how widespread such laws are and whether any of them provide an individual right of action to an IGO that could be cited as the basis for a new alternative CRP. I do know that our WG received comments on our Initial Report from many IGOs and not a single one cited any national law, much less asserted that it should be the basis for a new IGO-specific CRP. Frankly, if such additional national laws are widespread, and if IGOs are generally satisfied with them, then my own view would be that the protections afforded IGOs are even broader than we realized and there is even less justification for creation of a new CRP. Our WG, and the entire PDP system, has faced extraordinary challenges. Despite outreach efforts not a single IGO chose to become an official member. At the same time we were engaged in our work, IGOs and GAC members were engaged in closed door discussions with Board members from which GNSO members were excluded. While those talks initially focused on prior GNSO recommendations concerning permanent protections for IGOs, they were later permitted to encompass the very same CRP matters that our WG is charged with addressing. In the end the Board forwarded the “small group recommendations” to our WG (where they received full and deliberative consideration) but did not endorse them. Now, as we strive to complete our work, this ad hoc discussion group is considering whether a new legal inquiry should be made that may result in a request that we delay delivery of our Final Report. As noted above, if a decision is made to take that path and if we are consequently asked to delay delivery we shall give that request due consideration. But, to reiterate, the comment period on our Initial Report has closed and allowing any party to provide further input to our work without affording the same opportunity to all other members of the ICANN community would be highly irregular and unfair. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 3:54 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org; Beckham, Brian Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] Example of laws on international orgs Good morning from Madrid! First off, I'd like to thank everyone for weighing in on this discussion recently, and for Bruce's research on the legal situation as it applies in Australia. Second point, I'm a bit nervous that some of these talks are closely resembling topic deliberations, or a decisional conversation. All constructive contributions are welcome, but we need to bear in mind that this list is for discussion / coordination of our approach, rather than discussion of the subject matter itself. If there's something in particular that we want to capture, then let's try to work with Phil and Petter to feed those items back in to the ongoing Curative Rights PDP. Finally, while Council has approved a review of the Red Cross protections, and is working to reconvene the PDP soon, I am unclear as to any immediate next steps regarding IGO/INGO. I note that GNSO and GAC leadership have a call scheduled for later this month (week of 22 MAY, I believe), and we can discuss the path forward during that meeting (including any sessions in Johannesburg). Thank you, J. On May 11, 2017, 09:19 +0200, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, wrote: Thanks for pointing this out Bruce. This squarely underscores what has been put forward inter alia by IGOs and the GAC for some years now (which was also noted as having broad agreement in concluding the Sunday evening session in Copenhagen), namely a strong public policy basis for the limited protection sought for IGO identifiers in furtherance of their global public missions -- of which we are all beneficiaries. Best regards, Brian -----Original Message----- From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 6:31 AM To: discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: [Discussion-igo-rc] Example of laws on international orgs Hello All, Just been informed that Australia does have a law related to International Organizations: So this is an example of applicable local law: International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01053 " Except with the consent in writing of the Minister, a person (including a body corporate) shall not: (a) use the name or an abbreviation of the name of an international organisation to which this Act applies in connexion with a trade, business, profession, calling or occupation;" There is a list of organizations to which the act applies. Looks like strong protection at least in Australia. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Discussion-igo-rc mailing list Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc _______________________________________________ Discussion-igo-rc mailing list Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4776/14441 - Release Date: 05/06/17