[council] FW: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Council colleagues –

Earlier today, the Council leadership (Heather, Donna and myself), along with 
the co-chairs of the IGO Curative Rights PDP (Phil Corwin and Petter Rindforth) 
and our liaison to the GAC (Mason Cole) had a conversation with members of the 
ICANN Board and leadership on the GAC.  The focus of our discussions were 
protections for IGO Acronyms, and included a status update on consideration of 
the “small group” proposal and an exchange of views on the path(s) forward.

MP3 recording and Adobe chat transcript below, with a transcript of the call 
forthcoming.  Please feel free to share with your SGs and Cs, as I think many 
will find this material interesting in the run up to Hyderabad.
Thanks—
J.

From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 14:23
Subject: mp3, attendance, AC chat for the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross 
protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC

Dear All,

Please find attendance ,mp3,  and AC chat below for the Coordination call on 
IGO/Red Cross protections call on Thursday, 27 October 2016 at 16:00 UTC. We 
will send transcription upon receipt.

MP3:  https://icann.box.com/shared/static/8qwxvolztr9ydjk9ii4gf0izayvv8yy4.mp3



Attendance:




Petter Rindforth, Heather Forrest, Donna Austin, James Bladel, Markus Kummer , 
Tom Dale, Mason Cole, Thomas Schneider , Phil Corwin, Jorge Cancio, Ashley 
Heineman, Chris Disspain , Mark Carvell, Steve Crocker  and Becky Burr



Staff: Mary Wong, Olof Nordling, Jamie Hedlund, Steve Chan, Terri Agnew, Nigel 
Hickson



Apologies: none

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew

AC Chat

  Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Coordination call on IGO/Red Cross protections 
call  on Thursday, 27 October at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

  Heather Forrest:Thanks Terri - I'll dial in now but if I have trouble I will 
let you know

  Terri Agnew:sounds good thanks Heather

  James Bladel:Heather made it, Bruce is expected.

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):It's 3am in Canberra too.

  Heather Forrest:Indeed it is 3am

  Philip Corwin:Heather is setting an example for Bruce ;-)

  James Bladel:Thanks, recording & roll call would be great.

  nigel hickson:good afternoon

  Donna Austin, RySG:Good morning Tom :-)

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):Yo.

  Mary Wong:The best bits were done by Steve :)

  Petter Rindforth:Is it possible to get a specified agenda to us all on each 
session at ICANN57 where this topic will be discussed?

  Mary Wong:@Petter, at the moment on the public schedule there is a GAC 
session at noon local time on Friday 4 Nov

  Mary Wong:I believe the Board, GAC and GNSO are still finalizing their 
internal agendas, including topics for their joint meetings with one another.

  Petter Rindforth:Thanks

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Steve: The GAC has put together a list of around 230 
IGOs that should have their acronyms protected. This list was put together in 
around 2013 and it is planned that this list will be updated every few years.

  Olof Nordling:and the meeting GAC-GNSO Friday 4 Nov 1430 - 1600 has this 
topic on the agenda

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):And: the list has been set up following some criteria, 
i believe taken from those that are used for eligibilty for getting a .int 
domain

  Mary Wong:@Thomas,yes, I believe so.

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):ok

  Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):I understand the Curative Rights WG will 
present its draft recommendations at a session on the Monday 0900-1030. There 
are GAC plenary sessions at this time.

  Mary Wong:@Tom, yes that is the slot, I'm afraid.

  Jorge Cancio:Guess we are entering very much into substance here... a pity 
that IGOs/ICRC are not here

  Philip Corwin:Petter has his hand up and may want to comment on the WG status 
as well

  Chris Disspain:acknowledged Philip

  Chris Disspain:Petter will be next

  Heather Forrest:I lost much of what Thomas said - not sure if others did as 
well or if it was just a problem on my end of the phone bridge

  James Bladel:I think it was on your side,  I can hear him fine.

  Chris Disspain:I can hear him clearlyu

  Heather Forrest:OK - glad it wasn't the bridge itself

  Mary Wong:Following up on James' point, the process he is describing requires 
both consultation with the original PDP Working Group AND public comment.

  Becky Burr:i am moving to phone only

  Jorge Cancio:the reconvening of the PDP WG would be needed for adjusting the 
preventative protections only, right?

  Philip Corwin:I must demur from the charcaterization of IGO Proposal as a 
"compromise", at least in regard to its CRP provisions. While providing 
somewhat more detail, it is essentially the same position they have conveyed 
for the part two years.

  Mary Wong:@Jorge, yes - as the proposals for curative rights (rapid relief 
plus separate DRP) is being handled by the ongoing PDP Working Group chaired by 
Phil and Petter.

  Jorge Cancio:@Mary: thanks!

  Mary Wong:@Jorge, and for further background - the reason for this is that 
the original PDP Working Group made recommendations for preventative 
protections, and proposed that curative rights be referred to a subsequent 
effort (via a GNSO Issue Report and thus a new PDP).

  James Bladel:Agreeing with Heather & Donna - We are awaiting some action from 
the Board (rejection of GAC advice of PDP).  And in the case of the latter, 
it's not a foregone conclusion that the GNSO Council will vote to reconstittue 
the PDP, or that the outcome would be materially different than the original 
recommendations.

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, it is a compromise between the GAC and the Board 
regarding GAC advice that the GNSO was not involved in.

  Chris Disspain:'why have we done this' may turn out to be a very pertinent 
question Thomas...

  Heather Forrest:I'm just increasingly afraid that the perception is that the 
GNSO is unwilling or uninterested when that is not the case. Our procedures 
simply leave no room for "reconciliation" or "negotiation" on the GNSO's or 
GNSO Council's own initiative.

  Chris Disspain:understood Heather

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Donna: the GAC and the IGOs were participating in the 
small group in the clear understanding that the Board (and ICANN staff) was at 
least informally in contact with the authorized parties of the GNSO to make 
sure that what we have been working on would at least have a chance to serve as 
a basis for finding a concrete and pragmatical solution

  Donna Austin, RySG:@Thomas, understood

  Heather Forrest:Phil's comments that the IGOs have not participated in the 
Curative Rights PDP WG worry me, because this suggests that issues like this 
will keep arising, putting us all in this position over and over again

  Jorge Cancio:Just to make sure I explained myself: 1) on IGOs we have two 
clear positions before the Board. The Board can get all parties on a table with 
a clear timeframe to seek for a pragmatic solution. Part of that could feed 
into the ongoing work on curative protections; 2) a low-hanging fruit that 
could send a positive signal across the community would be to swiftly resolve 
the ICRC issue (at least the protection of the national society names)

  nigel hickson:Just to note for ICRC main issue is "National Names" (like 
British Red Cross); they only have 5 acronyms that current,y have temporary 
protection.

  Mary Wong:@James, the original recommendations that have already been 
approved by the Board would not be affected. Those remaining interim 
protections - i.e. reservations - that are in place will go away once a 
permanent resolution is approved.

  Jorge Cancio:Indeed a low-hangig fruit, I feel, that could create the right 
atmosphere

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Heather: i gave some explanations for why that the 
GAC and the IGOs came to the conclsuion that - after the experience with their 
participation in the first PDP and given that the second would build on the 
first and be dealing with the issue focussing on legal aspects that were not 
considered to be very conducive to finding a pragmatical solution. But i guess 
somebody like Brian Beckham from WIPO would be able to explain this more 
accurately and in more detail.

  Chris Disspain:it was not and is not intended that this call would be about 
the past and why X and Y were not in the room or were in the room etc.

  James Bladel:@Mary - So you are saying that, effectively, the Board has a 
"line item veto" when presented with a package of PDP recommendations?  If so, 
then we should consider this for future PDPs, espeically if there are 
inseparable dependencies.

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris: hope you are  going to repond on RedCross?

  Jorge Cancio:The ad hoc process would need to be inclusive of the PDP WG on 
curative protections of course - do not think that is impossible

  Mary Wong:@James, in this case the Board adopted the consistent 
recommendations and asked for more time for those that were inconsistent.

  Chris Disspain:I can't respond on RC Mark.....I will find out and see if we 
can get a note out ASAP

  Chris Disspain:James...does the GNSO consdier that the RC issue cn be dealt 
with separately?

  Jorge Cancio:@Chris: as I said, swift resolution of the ICRC would be a 
significant positive sign

  James Bladel:Mary - To my knowledge, we didn't highlight any dependencies for 
this PDP. We may need to do this going forward, if piecemeal approval/rejection 
is a potential outcome.

  Chris Disspain:understood @ Jorge

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:Chris - I mean respond on a next final step to do a 
fix that meets legal requirements.

  James Bladel:Agree with Thomas, the world is watching. Espeically in regard 
to the recent transition, to see if the community model can stand alongside of 
governments.

  Philip Corwin:The world is also watching to see if ICANN follows its own 
Bylaws -- not "flexible" ad hoc processes

  Donna Austin, RySG:Thomas, I agree with you, we need to find some flexibility 
within our proceses before PDP recommendations are finalised and GAC advice is 
delivered to the Board.

  Jorge Cancio:@James: the GAC is part of the community - we have to work out a 
solution together

  Mason Cole:We do have mechanisms that the GNSO-GAC consultation group put 
into place for GAC engagement in poicy development.

  James Bladel:Chris - sorry, missed your question about severabiliyt of the 
RC.  That is something we are also discussing.

  Jorge Cancio:@James: resolution of the ICRC really would help

  Mark Carvell UK GAC rep:ICRC is over-long-running issue!

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):@Philipp: But i am convinced that internet users 
(inviduals and businesses) care about solutions that work. if the current 
structures and procedures allow to get there fine. if not then maybe there is a 
need for improvement of strucutres...

  nigel hickson:Thanks to all;

  Markus Kummer:Bye all -- this call was very helpful. thanks!

  Thomas Schneider (GAC):thank you all. bye!

  Jorge Cancio:bye all and thanks!