ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Re: [council] IGO/RCRC related excerpt from GAC communequé

Yes, it is extremely problematic IMO.

For one, there is clearly an understanding from the GAC that:
- GAC advice is equivalent to policy. The phrase 'should not be subjected to, 
or conditioned upon, a policy development process' implies that the GAC thinks 
one sentence of advice constitutes policy.
- and that the GNSO PDP constitutes an attempt to develop competing policy, 
rather than a process by which GAC advice is turned into implementable policy.

I would also add that, as the WG PDP charter explicitly leaves open the option 
that the existing curative mechanisms may not be adequate, item I. is both 
uninformed and pointless.

Basically, I'm very disappointed, and angry as hell. We need to respond to this 
as a council. And I am not inclined to be overly polite - this demonstrates a 
very basic misunderstanding of not just the GNSO, but the entire ICANN policy 



On 26 Jun 2014, at 9:05 am, Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

5. Protection of Inter-Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms

The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires 
and Singapore Communiqués regarding protection for IGO names and acronyms at 
the top and second levels, as implementation of such protection is in the 
public interest given that IGOs, as created by governments under international 
law, are objectively different rights holders; notes the NGPC’s letter of 16 
June 2014 to the GNSO concerning further steps under the GNSO Policy 
Development Process while expressing concerns that the process of implementing 
GAC advice has been so protracted; welcomes the NGPC's assurance that interim 
protections remain in place pending any such process; and confirms its 
willingness to work with the GNSO on outcomes that meet the GAC’s concerns.

6. Protection of Red Cross / Red Crescent Names

The GAC refers to its previous advice to the Board to protect permanently the 
terms and names associated with the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including those 
relating to the189 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and recalls 
that the protections afforded to the Red Cross and Red Cross designations and 
names stem from universally agreed norms of international law and from the 
national legislation in force in multiple jurisdictions. Accordingly,

a. The GAC now advises, that:

the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be equated with 
trademarks or trade names and that their protection could not therefore be 
adequately treated or addressed under ICANN's curative mechanisms for trademark 

the protections due to the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should 
not be subjected to, or conditioned upon, a policy development process;

the permanent protection of these terms and names should be confirmed and 
implemented as a matter of priority, including in particular the names of the 
international and national Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>