RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mason, Stephane and John.  As the chair of the Drafting Team, I do not 
believe that this letter changes any of the work underway with the drafting 
team other than to give us further resolve to provide a clear response to the 
GAC proposal (from last September) ASAP, whether that response is to maintain 
the status quo or provide additional protections or somewhere in between.

With respect to circumventing the GNSO, this has also been a concern of mine 
and I do believe a response to the IGO letter is warranted to send a clear 
message that WE, the GNSO community, are tasked with determining gTLD policies 
through the multi-stakeholder processes.  Not the Board, but the community.  To 
that end, I was very comforted by the recent Progress Report issues by the new 
gTLD committee of the board,  
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/report-03aug12-en.pdf, which 
states with respect to being asked for action on the IOC/RCRC issue:

“Review of this material indicates that the appropriate course is for the Board 
to leave these issues in the hands of ICANN’s policy--‐making bodies.  This was 
the recommendation of the Board in its Singapore resolution when considering 
protections for the IOC and Red Cross.  ICANN staff members are supporting that 
discussion in the GNSO.  The IOC and Red Cross are addressing their comments to 
the GNSO.  The GNSO is properly considering whether to do additional work on 
these issues.”

The same rationale holds true with respect to the IGOs and should be repeated 
back to the IGOs in our response letter.

I believe it is a little premature to provide any response to the GAC on the 
issue of their consideration of the IGO issue.  I do not read their latest 
communiqué as a change, but rather just a politically correct statement saying 
that they are considering the issue (much like we may likely be doing once the 
final issue report is released).  The GAC has every right to consider the issue 
and provide advice to the Board.  Hopefully the Board will repeat the above 
mantra and send that advice back down to the GNSO for its consideration prior 
to taking any action.  To do otherwise at this point would go against the 
latest new gTLD Progress Report.

Hope that helps.

Best regards,

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mason Cole
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:00 PM
To: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion 
of IGO names from gTLD registration


Please excuse my late reply on this as I'm just back from a holiday which had 
me out of e-mail reach for an extended period.

Allow me to make note of two communications on the IGO matter.  (There were 
previous communications on IGO protection, dating back to December 2011, but I 
don't believe they were sent by / addressed to a UN agency, as are these, but 
by a collection of IGO legal counsel):

First, the GAC's letter to the Board of 12 April 2012, including:

"Firstly, the GAC reaffirms previous advice that the IOC and Red Cross and Red 
Crescent should be protected at the top and second levels, given that these 
organizations enjoy protection at both the international level through 
international treaties (e.g. the Nairobi Treaty and the Geneva Conventions) and 
through national laws in multiple jurisdictions. The GAC considers the 
existence of such two-­-tiered protection as creating the criteria relevant to 
determining whether any other entities should be afforded comparable enhanced 
protection.

The GAC has considered the Board’s request for policy advice on the expansion 
of protections to include IGOs and advises that in the event that additional 
IGOs are found to meet the above criteria, this would be a consideration in the 
formulation of GAC advice for IGO protections in future rounds, as well as 
consideration of protections for IGOs, more generally.

Therefore, the GAC advises that no additional protections should be afforded to 
IGOs, beyond the current protections found in the Applicant Guidebook, for the 
current round."

Second, the GAC's Prague communique:

"Mindful of its previous GAC advice to the Board on protection of names and 
acronyms of international organisations enjoying protection at both the 
international level through international treaties and through national laws in 
multiple jurisdictions, such as Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, and recognizing 
the importance of assuring equal treatment of qualifying international 
organisations under the same criteria, the GAC is carefully considering the 
issue, with a view to providing further advice to the Board at a time suitable 
to the GNSO consideration of this issues (sic) expected in July."

Perhaps I'm making incorrect inferences, but while a) the April letter is very 
clear that the GAC advises against additional protection, and b) I believe the 
council received some level of assurance that the IOC/RC request was unique 
thanks to their particular status under international law, the communique seems 
to suggest IGOs could rise to equal status with the IOC and RC.  Perhaps the 
GAC is preparing to reverse its previous advice.

With regard to the content of the issue -- the protection of IGO names -- I 
believe we have only the April advice of the GAC on which to rely, with a later 
notification in its communique that it is again considering the protection 
issue.

With regard to the process that applies to the issue -- how to go about 
achieving protection through policy, if warranted -- I agree with John that we 
have plenty of heat, and some light would be more useful.  I understand the UN 
is frustrated by perceived delay.  I also understand very clearly not everyone 
sees the rationale behind ICANN policymaking procedures and the practical 
necessity of relying on them and not freelancing policy.

To Stephane's question, I agree a reply could be useful (perhaps including the 
correspondence between IGO legal counsel and staff earlier this year).  Further 
informing that reply might be a better understanding of what change, if any, 
the GAC may make to its April advice, and a review of the board's rationale for 
voting down the GNSO's recommendation to approve IOC/RC protection.

Finally, I too am interested in Jeff's input as chair of the DT.

Mason


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 
behalf of john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 8:53 AM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion 
of IGO names from gTLD registration


Stephane,

Circumventing the process was very much on the mind of the Council in
Costa Rica, the meeting at which the matter of IGO protections was first
put front-and-center.  Our response then should inform our actions now.

Recall that on March 26 went sent a letter to Board Chair Steve Crocker
and then-CEO Rod Beckstrom committing to the the organization's
principles.  The UN has an advocate at ICANN in the GAC.  GAC has the
responsibility to offer advice to the Board.  If that advice affects
policy, the Board then forwards to the Council.

Has the Board gotten such advice?  Has the Board engaged the Council?
With this much heat, I am surprised there has not be more light.

As a Council member, I want us to do what we can, where we can, when we
can.  No less, no more.

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting
exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am
To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>

Councillors,

Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself
on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD
programme.

As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on
the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be
providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO
names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific
direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might
be desirable at this time, rather than no response.

As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of
the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the
Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue
has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up
PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN.

As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts
at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any
formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would
be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I
would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Alina Syunkova 
> <alina.syunkova@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:alina.syunkova@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from 
> gTLD registration
> Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC
> À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx<mailto:heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx>>, 
> "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc : Diane Schroeder 
> <diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>>
>
> Dear Heather and Stephane,
>
> Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General 
> for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the 
> ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Thank you,
> -- Alina Syunkova
>
> Board Support Coordinator
> ICANN
> Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972
> Skype: alina.syunkova.icann
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536