Dear David and everyone,

While the WG should certainly take into consideration the GAC’s advice from the LA Communique in its deliberations, do note that any responses, queries or communications to and with the GAC should be done through the GNSO Council, as it is the manager of every policy development process initiated within the GNSO. We therefore recommend that any clarifying questions that this WG may wish to ask the GAC first be discussed at an upcoming WG meeting and then (if applicable) transmitted on to the Council for its review and communication to the GAC – which the Council may choose to do through Mason Cole, the newly-appointed GNSO liaison to the GAC. 

In Los Angeles, the Board and the GAC discussed the formation of a small informal group of GAC members (including IGOs who are official Observers to the GAC), to serve as a contact point and resource for our WG and the GNSO Council. This will not of course replace the possibility of IGOs or GAC members joining our WG directly as a member or observer (and staff has received a few queries on that as a result of the Los Angeles meetings), but may well be a more direct way for the GNSO as a body to interact with the GAC on this particular issue, via each of its appointed representatives. 

WG members should note also that individual GAC members cannot speak on behalf of the GAC, whether informally via conversation or more formally via joining a WG. GAC Communiques therefore remain the primary tool for the dissemination of GAC consensus positions. In this regard, Mason has sent a note to the GNSO Council following the GAC’s LA Communique noting that the GAC’s mention of our PDP should be viewed as a positive step in the GAC’s attempts at early engagement in a GNSO PDP. As this is the first GAC comment on our PDP, the trend of GAC Communiques would indicate that such early statements tend to be statements of positions, with rationales and details developed subsequently via further debate and discussion.

Staff therefore recommends that the WG directs any follow up questions or actions in relation to the GAC advice to the GNSO Council for its consideration.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@icann.org

 


From: David Cake <dave@difference.com.au>
Date: Monday, October 20, 2014 at 2:10 AM
To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GAC LA Communique on IGO-INGO Curative Rights WG

Clearly, much of this is directly relevant to the work of this group. 

At the councils retreat on Friday, the idea was raised that the GNSO (via the Council) should provide some discussion of the GAC Communique to the board, so that the boards response to GAC advice can be more grounded in community input. 

Would this WG have a response to the GAC advice? My initial thought is that it is difficult to know how to interpret it (what aspect of the UDRP are problematic to the GAC), but that we should seek clarification of the issues that concern the GAC. I have had offers from GAC members to explain further the points of concern. 

David

On 19 Oct 2014, at 11:24 am, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

WG members:
 
 
On pp.6-7 of the Communique the following language relevant to the task of our WG appears:
 
3.      Protection of Inter-­-Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms
a.       The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires, Singapore and London Communiqués regarding protection of IGO names and acronyms at the top and second levels, as implementationof such protection is in the public interest given that IGOs, as created bygovernments under international law, are objectively different rightholders; namely,
i.      Concerning preventative protection at the second level, the GAC reminds the ICANN Board that notice of a match to an IGO name or acronym to prospective registrants, as well as to the concernedIGO, should apply in perpetuity for the concerned name andacronym in two languages, and at no cost to IGOs;
ii.      Concerning curative protection at the second level, and notingthe ongoing GNSO PDP on access to curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, the GAC reminds the ICANN Board that any such mechanism should be at no or nominal cost to IGOs; andfurther, in implementing any such curative mechanism,
 
 
b.      The GAC advises the ICANN Board:

i.      That the UDRP should not be amended; welcomes the NGPC'scontinued assurance that interim protections remain in place pending the resolution of discussions concerning preventativeprotection of IGO names and acronyms; and supports continueddialogue between the GAC (including IGOs), the ICANN Board (NGPC) and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions to implement long-­-standing GAC advice. (Emphasis added)
 
4.      Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent Names
The GAC welcomes the decision of the New gTLD Program Committee (Resolution 2014.10.12.NG05) to provide temporary protections for the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The GAC requests the ICANN Board and all relevant parties to work quickly to resolve the longer term issues still outstanding.
 
In regard to the highlighted portions of the communique, the GAC makes clear that it wants any new curative RPM to be available to IGOs at “no or nominal cost”. This leaves open the question, should our WG choose to recommend the creation of a new DRP, of whether the current costs of the URS and UDRP are viewed as falling within the “nominal” range – and, if deemed by the GAC to exceed such range, what party should assume the financial cost of subsidizing access to any new DRP by IGOs.
 
In regard to the GAC’s statement that “the UDRP should not be amended”, in my personal opinion this appears to be an overreaching attempt to foreclose the possibility that this WG will determine that the UDRP should in fact be amended to better accommodate the legitimate rights of IGOs, and that a new curative rights process is not advisable, and as such should be rejected at this time -- as it would only leave the option of creating a new curative RPM. ICANN and the GNSO  have responded to the GAC’s concerns in regard to IGOs by establishing this WG, but we should be free to pursue its work as its members deem best without intervening attempts by the GAC to direct us to a predetermined outcome.
 
Such intervention is manifestly different from the type of participation that would be welcome from IGOs and GAC members, which is contributing to our factual database and interaction in our ongoing and open dialogue. In this regard, when the Board met with the GNSO Council in Sunday, October 12th the activities of this WG were highlighted and there was dialogue concerning the intervention of Board members to encourage GAC and IGO participation. The transcript of that session is not yet available at http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working and I would therefore solicit the assistance of ICANN staff in securing it so that we can review that discussion and follow up on it.
 
In conclusion, it would be useful to have feedback from WG members in regard to the relevant portions of the GAC Communique and in particular as to whether we should prepare any reply in regard to its substance as well as to solicit the participation of IGOs and GAC members in our work.
 
Thanks and best regards,
Philip Corwin, Co-Chair
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
 
Twitter: @VlawDC
 
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
 
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp