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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, that is very helpful.

I wonder if we, as a Council, could ask the DT to draft a communication letter 
to the GNSO community, as you suggest?

What do people think about this?

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Head of Domain Operations
Group NBT

Le 9 août 2012 à 04:29, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 on behalf of 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>
> Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am
> To: GNSO Council List <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>
> > 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>, 
> > "stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc : Diane Schroeder <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
>