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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I admit that I have not or properly read or digested this but, I?d like to
tease apart two components of this issue if possible:

 

1.       The role of the GAC relative to the role of the GNSO in ICANN

2.       The belief that there is some form of international law / treaty /
convention that is greater that the GAC / GNSO  or ICANN in this specific
case.

 

Jonathan

 

From: David Cake [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 26 June 2014 09:24
To: Thomas Rickert
Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [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 process. 

 

Regards 

 

David

 

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: 

        I.            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 protection; 

      II.            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; 

    III.            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.