James, Thank you for your email. I think you are getting at the heart of the issue that prompted my original email. I won't rehash my point, but there is a substantial difference between (1) replacing members (and their roles) who have moved on and (2) admitting new members. The former seeks to maintain the WG (in roles if not people), while the second risks re-creating the WG in a different configuration (and possibly ending up, intentionally or not, with a different result). Since this is the first time that Section 16 has been invoked, we need to proceed thoughtfully. Perhaps what needs to be done is to review who is continuing to participate and who isn't, and see where that leaves us in the task of reviving the WG without reinventing it. Whatever we do, it should be done transparently. We would not want to leave the impression that those "in the know" can join a Section 16 phase WG, while the larger stakeholder community remains unaware of the opportunity (and perhaps unaware that their community is no longer represented in the WG as it once was). Greg On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

Thanks James,

On your first item, I have no doubt that there could be people (more likely among those that DID participate earlier) who would want to re-open the entire bag-of-laughs, but I also have no doubt that those running the show and a lot of others would tell them where to get off...

But simply acting "reasonably" is fine with me as well.

Alan

At 22/06/2017 02:53 PM, James M. Bladel wrote:

Good thoughts from Alan and Thomas. But there are other factors that must be considered as well.

Keep in mind that this (Section 16) process is meant to be a light-weight "are you sure?" review of a subset of the PDP recommendations, not a blank page re-do of the work. With this in mind, we should be very wary of admitting new members who did not participate on the original PDP. Otherwise, we foster a perception that Section 16 is the "real" PDP, a second bite at the apple, and all of the previous work was just some preliminary exercise.

That said, this particular situation is challenged by extreme gap elapsed between the original PDP (late 2013) and the reconvened group. Many of the individuals or groups who participated on the original PDP may not be available this time around for a variety of reasons. As I indicated during the first call, the reconvened WG should therefore be open to common sense admission of new members, if it can be shown that they are replacing a point of view or stakeholder that would otherwise be absent from the Section 16 review.

This is the first instance where the GNSO is engaging in its review procedure, and we are very wary of creating precedents that will outlive the topic du jour and be applied, perhaps incorrectly, to future PDPs. But I am confident that Thomas Rickert and the members of the PDP will exercise good judgement in allowing some necessary new members, but without opening the floodgates to any & all interested newcomers

Thank you,

J. ----------------- James Bladel GNSO Chair

On Jun 21, 2017, 10:30 -0500, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>, wrote:

I missed this thread when it started.

We have always (as long as I can recall anyway) allowed people to join a PDP WG part-way through the process - with an understanding that they need to get up to speed on the issues. I see nothing wrong with people joining a reconvened PDP WG. If it is reconvened, it is back in operation (with a more targeted mandate) - no reason to impose new rules.

Moreover, it is certain that some of the original participants may not wish to play in the sandbox, so replacing them would also be a natural occurrence.

Alan

At 21/06/2017 11:10 AM, Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch wrote:

Dear all

first of all, thanks to Greg for raising an important question.

I am not too familiar with the exact procedural aspects of GNSO work, but the point that I am making is a rather general one:

We all agreed that it would be useful and in the interest of all if GNSO PDPs were as be open and inclusive as possible. And we also agreed that the GAC should engage as early as possible in GNSO work that is relevant from a public policy perspective.

So I think it is important that GAC (as well as all other stakeholders) are able to participate in this particular workstream.

whether this is now a new or resumed old process and whether you can or have to do a new public call or not, I can^t tell, but in any case all this should allow all those who want and who should to participate in this and all of this should be done transparently.

I hope this helps J

Thomas

*Von:* Mary Wong [ mailto:mary.wong@icann.org <mary.wong@icann.org>] *Gesendet:* Montag, 12. Juni 2017 18:26 *An:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org *Cc:* Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>; Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey@icrc.org>; Cancio Jorge BAKOM < Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>; Mark Carvell <mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>; Stephane Hankins <shankins@icrc.org> *Betreff:* Re: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Fw: Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names

Dear Greg and everyone,

Staff is consulting with Thomas and the GNSO Council leadership regarding the question you raised. Our understanding was that the consultation that is mandatory in this policy amendment process is with the original PDP Working Group, reconvened, and is thus not a new Working Group (which would require an open call for volunteers). Observers to the GAC (e.g. the Red Cross and various IGOs) were participants in the Working Group, however, which was formed in the days when GNSO Working Groups did not have the option to sign up only to be an observer, so one option here could be for new participants to be observers rather than members to the Working Group.

In any event, we will confirm once the GNSO Council leadership has had a chance to discuss the matter.

Thanks and cheers Mary

*From:* Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com > *Date:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 00:04 *To:* " gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org " <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org > *Cc:* Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, " Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch" < Thomas.Schneider@bakom.admin.ch>, Charlotte Lindsey Curtet < clindsey@icrc.org>, "< Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>" < Jorge.Cancio@bakom.admin.ch>, Mark Carvell < mark.carvell@culture.gov.uk>, Stephane Hankins <shankins@icrc.org> *Subject:* [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Fw: Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names

I thought that Stephane's request raised an interesting procedural question/quandary, and I was a little surprised to see it granted without discussion.

The PDP Manual is rather sparse, stating only that the first step in the amendment/modification process is that: "The PDP Team is reconvened or, if disbanded, reformed, and should be consulted with regards to the proposed amendments or modifications;"

I had thought of this as "getting the band back together again," i.e., bringing together the team that had participated in the original PDP process so they could be consulted based on their experience and expertise gained through the deliberations of the Working Group. As such I had the idea that the reconvened WG was limited to the pre-existing members of the WG.

Of course, Working Groups are generally open to new participants at any time, unless stated otherwise, and subject to certain limitations (i.e., later joiners must read the existing documents, etc. of the group and may not re-open decided points absent compelling new evidence). It was just not clear to me that this general rule applied to a reconvened working group, given my understanding of why the "old" group is reconstituted rather than just forming a new group.

If the general rule applies, and the group is open to new members, doesn't it then make sense to put out a general call for new members? We should allow all stakeholders the same opportunity, rather than having new membership be "by invitation only."

To me, the current situation is a somewhat uncomfortable midway point between bringing the old gang together and essentially convening a new group under the name of the old one.

It would be unfortunate to start our work with a procedural irregularity, particularly where the invitation for selected new members to participate has come from the party that is inarguably most interested in the outcome of this process. This could set an unfortunate precedent for future work under Section 16.

I look forward to the thoughts of others. Apologies that I cannot be on Wednesday's call to raise the issue.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Stephane Hankins <shankins@icrc.org> wrote: Dear Mary, Many thanks for the agenda of the first call of the reconvened PDP Working Group, just received. On Jorge Cancio's suggestion, could you kindly consider to add the names and e-mails of Thomas Schneider, Jorge Cancio and Mark Carvell to the distributions' list and invitations for the reconvened PDP Working Group meeting calls. It is important that the voice of member States of the GAC be also, and as far as possible, represented. Could you also kindly add Charlotte's name and e-mail as well (Charlotte Lindsey: clindsey@icrc.org). With thanks and kind regards, Stéphane

Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19 <22%20730%2024%2019> ----- Forwarded by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC on 12.06.2017 12:11 ----- From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> To: " gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org " <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org > Date: 12.06.2017 12:00 Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed agenda for the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names Sent by: gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org

Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for this first call of our reconvened PDP Working Group, which agenda has been approved by Thomas Rickert, our chair: 1. Roll call/reminder to updates Statements of Interest 2. Overview of the GNSO policy amendment process (i.e. steps, possible outcomes, role of the Council and the Board vis-Ã -vis the WG etc.) (led by GNSO Council Chairs) 3. Review and discussion of the scope of the GNSO Council request (led by GNSO Council Chairs/Thomas Rickert) 4. Recap of why and what brought us here (i.e. overview of the Copenhagen facilitated discussions highlighting the post-PDP developments (GAC advice) and the limited nature of the list of Red Cross names) (led by GNSO Council Chairs/Thomas Rickert) 5. Recap and review of the original policy recommendations (led by Thomas Rickert) 6. Discussion of a possible timeline for the WG and reporting back to the GNSO Council (led by Thomas Rickert) 7. Next steps/next meeting For this first meeting, you may find the following links helpful: GNSO Council request to initiate this policy amendment process - https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> The GNSO PDP Manual (this policy amendment process is described in Section 16) - https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual- 01sep16-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> The original (Nov 2013) Final Report from our Working Group - https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13- en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> (the Minority Statements can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/ issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issue...> ) Transcript and recording from the ICANN58 GAC-GNSO facilitated dialogue on Red Cross names - http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann58copenhagen2017/39/ Transcript%20IGO%20Red%20Cross%2011%20March%20Copenhagen.pdf[schd.ws] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__schd.ws_hosted-5Ffiles_i...> (transcript); http://audio.icann.org/meetings/cph58/cph58-OPEN- 2017-03-11-T0655-hallc14-oQgDtIEBJGGxfDtpEgbCTflp7NUkfe eE-en.m3u[audio.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_meetings...> (recording) Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Friday, June 9, 2017 at 01:52 To: " christopher.lamb17@gmail.com" < christopher.lamb17@gmail.com>, " gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org " <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org > Subject: Scheduling the first meeting of this reconvened PDP Working Group on Red Cross names Dear all, Thank you to everyone who has responded, and for those who have not, we will be grateful if you can let us know whether you will be available to participate in the consultation with the GNSO Council concerning a proposed amendment to the policy recommendation developed by this Working Group in relation to Red Cross National Society and international movement names.

Following consultations with Thomas Rickert, the Chair of this Working Group, and the GNSO Council leadership, staff will be scheduling the first call on this topic for Wednesday 14 June at 1800 UTC. Please look out for a calendar invitation and call-in details shortly.

For those who are intending to participate in this reconvened Working Group but who cannot make that first call, please note that the call will be recorded and transcribed, as is the case for all GNSO Working Group discussions and meetings. Thanks and cheers Mary From: " christopher.lamb17@gmail.com" < christopher.lamb17@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:20 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org " < gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org > Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] PLEASE READ: Reconvening this Working Group - a message from GNSO Council Chairs Dear Mary, Thanks very much for this. I̢۪m not sure that I will have a lotlot to contribute beyond my support for the consensus, but I̢۪m happy to be part of the action!

All the best Chris Christopher Lamb 43/27 Flinders Lane Melbourne 3000 +61 423 099 121 <+61%20423%20099%20121> (mobile and WhatsApp) +61 3 9942 6679 <+61%203%209942%206679> (fixed) Skype: clamb17 From: Mary Wong Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 20:03 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] PLEASE READ: Reconvening this Working Group - a message from GNSO Council Chairs Dear members of the 2012-2013 Working Group on IGO-INGO Protections in All gTLDs, On behalf of the current GNSO Council Chairs, I write to ask that you read the attached letter from them, relating to a reconvening of our Working Group for the purpose of consultation about a possible modification of our initial policy recommendation concerning certain Red Cross National Society and international movement names. As requested in the letter, the GNSO Council will greatly appreciate your reply to this email list, indicating if you will be available to participate in that consultation, by Friday 9 June 2017. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director & Special Adviser for Strategic Policy Planning Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 <(603)%20574-4889> On 11/21/13, 15:48, " owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org on behalf of Thomas Rickert" < owner-gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org on behalf of rickert@anwaelte.de> wrote: All, as you will have noted, the GNSO Council has unanimously adopted the consensus recommendations made by our WG. The collaborative spirit, the timeliness of our work, the time spent by all of you and the fact that we came to consensus on many points despite the diverse views represented in the WG was very much applauded by Council members, Board members and individuals that spoke up. It is my pleasure to pass on this commendation to all of you and I would like to personally thank all of you again as well as Berry, Mary and Marika from ICANN staff for their outstanding work. I hope that this e-mail list will continue to exist until such time when we know whether the Board will accept the recommendations and when it comes to implementing an IRT (Implementation Review Team). All the best, Thomas ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo [avast.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Dema...> Virus-free. www.avast.com[avast.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Dema...> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org[icrc.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icrc.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=...> This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/ listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:JEKXubAFzHkiQizbc1ir4ZTxI4MVZL XL8pIefb5LO9cnRuCceCH0R0QnDSgMKU9YwAarvwJPSigrwOkvkjPjfg4g7EHxEM59ny+ dn1iLFRIawJy3LkeHlmDstOSYf2tk0VgRG2JaqlFbW00xoaPeCg== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000128 )(400125000095)( 20160514016 )(520000050 )(520002050 )(750028)(400001001183 )(400125100095)( 61617067)( 400001002128 )(400125200095);

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo