Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent
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@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "tom@acig.com.au" <tom@acig.com.au>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc@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@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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=qfB98V8fd86ow2QHzGOdzPTQpmCjREUeqNCd7fiJ1gU&e=>. 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.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_curtet-2Dto-2Dgnso-2Dcouncil-2D14apr16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=hff7U3ojKrWCvm50WJXzFym0OS0xSaI9kWwp5tSXkqw&e=>. 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.
Dear Mary Thank you for your kind message. It may indeed be difficult to include some of the comments I made, so I’ve tried to add them to the last version of the three docs available under the wiki. Please find them attached. Hope this is helpful Regards Jorge Von: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 20:18 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; tom@acig.com.au; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 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, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>" <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>; Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=qfB98V8fd86ow2QHzGOdzPTQpmCjREUeqNCd7fiJ1gU&e=>. 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.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_curtet-2Dto-2Dgnso-2Dcouncil-2D14apr16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=hff7U3ojKrWCvm50WJXzFym0OS0xSaI9kWwp5tSXkqw&e=>. 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.
Dear Jorge, Thank you so much for adding your comments to the three documents; they have now all been uploaded to the Discussion Group wiki space alongside the previous versions: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. Cheers Mary From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch> Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 04:13 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "tom@acig.com.au" <tom@acig.com.au>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Subject: AW: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Mary Thank you for your kind message. It may indeed be difficult to include some of the comments I made, so I’ve tried to add them to the last version of the three docs available under the wiki. Please find them attached. Hope this is helpful Regards Jorge Von: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 20:18 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; tom@acig.com.au; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 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, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>" <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>; Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=qfB98V8fd86ow2QHzGOdzPTQpmCjREUeqNCd7fiJ1gU&e=>. 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.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_curtet-2Dto-2Dgnso-2Dcouncil-2D14apr16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=hff7U3ojKrWCvm50WJXzFym0OS0xSaI9kWwp5tSXkqw&e=>. 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.
Dear all First of all, I would like to thank everybody for your efforts in trying to prepare our facilitated discussion on IGO protection on the one hand and RC/RC protection on the other hand. (And also for trying to find a feasible date for a phone conference before the Copenhagen meeting…) With regard to the process and the problem statement, please let me share some thoughts with you. With regard to the “problem” statement, at least to me, the core of the problem is the following: When trying to apply to ICANN’s mandate, mission and core values, to these two issues, then the essence for me is that ICANN should develop frameworks for the allocation and use of Domain Names that is “in the global public interest”. This incorporates creating opportunities for innovative uses of Domain Names for businesses, users and communities but also the respect for international and – whenever possible – national laws as well as reducing abuses, fraud and negative effects on and costs for any parts of the community. In the case of IGO protection it is about finding ways to reduce risks and costs for publicly funded Intergovernmental Organisations through appropriate protection from abuse of their names and acronyms while at the same time not imposing unnecessary burden on the Domain industry. So that in the end for the global public the positive effects outweigh the negative ones. The idea in my view is to find innovative solutions – that may be inspired by existing mechanisms – to get the best possible protection for IGOs with the minimum necessary burden on the industry. From a global public interest view, the “problem” of IGO protection is basically the same as with the protection of the Red Cross Red Crescent movement – i.e. to find ways to grant the best possible protection to the RC/RC with the least necessary burden on the Industry. However there are differences in the legal bases and ways that protection is anchored on national and international levels. And the abuse cases with actors pretending to be part of the red cross family to illegally make money with the Red Cross etc. names are also somewhat different. This is why there should be two separate processes for both, IGO and RC/RC protection. In this spirit, I am looking forward to a constructive facilitation process where all involved will participate with an open mind and in good faith trying to find solutions that will live up to ICANN’s mission fulfil its job in the global public interest. The list of relevant documents in the “proposed process” document (numbers 1-10) should provide for a useful factual basis for the material discussion. To what extent all this information has to be summed up in a “problem statement” document can be discussed. Important to me is that all relevant documents are available when starting the facilitation process. Best regards Thomas Thomas Schneider Chair ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Von: discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mary Wong Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Februar 2017 02:22 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; tom@acig.com.au; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org Betreff: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Jorge, Thank you so much for adding your comments to the three documents; they have now all been uploaded to the Discussion Group wiki space alongside the previous versions: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw. Cheers Mary From: "Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>> Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 04:13 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>" <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>> Subject: AW: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent Dear Mary Thank you for your kind message. It may indeed be difficult to include some of the comments I made, so I’ve tried to add them to the last version of the three docs available under the wiki. Please find them attached. Hope this is helpful Regards Jorge Von: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Gesendet: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2017 20:18 An: Cancio Jorge BAKOM <Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>>; tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Ext] AW: [Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 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, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>" <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>; Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=qfB98V8fd86ow2QHzGOdzPTQpmCjREUeqNCd7fiJ1gU&e=>. 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.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_curtet-2Dto-2Dgnso-2Dcouncil-2D14apr16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=hff7U3ojKrWCvm50WJXzFym0OS0xSaI9kWwp5tSXkqw&e=>. 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.
Apologies all, I believe my comments on the proposed process document may have fallen through the cracks on my end. I do not have specific wording edits, but I’d like to request that in addition to myself that I also have my subject matter experts with me (Susan Anthony & John Rodriguez from PTO) during the sessions in Copenhagen. From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:18 PM To: Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch; tom@acig.com.au; discussion-igo-rc@icann.org Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] [Ext] AW: Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent 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@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 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, February 7, 2017 at 02:53 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>" <tom@acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>, "discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc@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@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:tom@acig.com.au>>; Discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<mailto: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[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=qfB98V8fd86ow2QHzGOdzPTQpmCjREUeqNCd7fiJ1gU&e=>. 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.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_correspondence_curtet-2Dto-2Dgnso-2Dcouncil-2D14apr16-2Den.pdf-29&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=LoRowNKBf8bwUHkLadtcmOCGRWcuVogikvF1THuOAiA&s=hff7U3ojKrWCvm50WJXzFym0OS0xSaI9kWwp5tSXkqw&e=>. 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.
participants (4)
-
Heineman, Ashley -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Mary Wong -
Thomas.Schneider＠bakom.admin.ch