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@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@acig.com.au>; Discussion-igo-rc@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. 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.p...). 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tom Dale <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>> Date: Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 04:53 To: "Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@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@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@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 1:50 AM To: Thomas Dale <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "gac@icann.org<mailto:gac@icann.org>" <gac@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@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@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@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.