Re: [council] Summary of GAC Communique advice on IGO & Red Cross protections; mentions of GNSO work on Whois

["Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Former Colleagues of the GNSO Council,<div><br /></div><div>As to IGO's 
and curative rights, I had a meeting this morning with WIPO (representing IGO) 
and got the clear input that they want to see a separate dispute resolution 
system for IGO's (and Red Cross) only. They do not want to open up URS and/or 
UDRP for changes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our WG will get continous informal 
feedback's from IGO's (although they do not want to officially be members of 
the WG) by informal e-mail discussion, so I hope that we can have a clear view 
of their position/s at an early stage.</div><div><br 
/></div><div>Best,</div><div>Petter<br /><div><br />-- <br />Petter Rindforth, 
LL M
<br />
<br />Fenix Legal KB
<br />Stureplan 4c, 4tr
<br />114 35 Stockholm
<br />Sweden
<br />Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
<br />Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
<br />E-mail: petter.rindforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<br />www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />
<br />
<br />NOTICE
<br />This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals 
to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged 
information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any 
of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by 
return e-mail.
<br />Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
<br />Thank you<br /><br /><p>16 oktober 2014, Mary Wong 
&lt;mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx&gt; skrev:</p><blockquote type="cite"><div 
class="oneComWebmail-html oneComWebmail-mail"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); 
font-size: 14px;" class="oneComWebmail-body"><div><div><div>Dear Council 
members,</div><div><br /></div><div>We thought you may find a summary of the 
GAC's Los Angeles communique issued this morning helpful, specifically in 
relation to references to the issue of IGO & Red Cross protections as well as 
to Whois policy work.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>On IGOs having preventative 
protection via the TMCH notices:</b></div><div>The GAC clarifies that the 
so-called “claims notice” process should not just be the post-registration 
Notice of Registered Name (NORN) from the TMCH, but also the pre-registration 
claims notice issued to the prospective registrant. This should be in two 
languages, at no cost to the IGOs and last for the duration of the TMCH (in 
this case the GAC uses the word “perpetuity”).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>On 
IGOs and curative rights:</b></div><div>The GAC expressly acknowledges that 
there is an ongoing GNSO PDP on this, and advises that in their view the 
solution should not be in the form of amending the UDRP and URS. They also 
state that they welcome continued dialogue with the NGPC and the GNSO to 
develop concrete solutions. My understanding is that the GAC considers this 
piece of advice to be part of their effort at early engagement – by providing 
government’s views to us at an early stage of our PDP for one 
thing.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>On Red Cross 
protections:</b></div><div>The GAC welcomes the latest NGPC resolution on 
interim protections for the 189 Red Cross national society names and urges the 
Board and “all relevant parties” to work out remaining issues.</div><div><br 
/></div><div><b>On Whois policy work:</b></div><div>The GAC has requested a 
Road Map from ICANN on timelines for and linkages between various tracks of 
Whois work, including specifically Privacy/Proxy Accreditation, Translation & 
Transliteration of gTLD Contact Information, implementation of thick Whois and 
Whois Conflicts with National Laws procedures.</div><div><br /></div><div>The 
Communique also discusses the GAC’s reaction to the NGPC response on Category 1 
& 2 safeguards, the issue of 2-character domain names at the second level and 
the RSEP requests submitted recently, and the GAC’s intention to work inter 
sessionally to address human rights and other legal 
considerations. </div><div><br /></div><div>The full Communique is here: <a 
href="https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20Communique_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413479079702&api=v2";
 
target="_blank">https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20Communique_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413479079702&api=v2</a></div><div><br
 /></div><div>We hope this brief summary of some of the points relevant to 
current GNSO work is helpful.</div><div><br 
/></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Mary</div><div><br /></div><div><div><div><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Mary 
Wong</font></font></div><div><font class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" 
color="#000000"><font class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" 
face="Calibri">Senior Policy Director</font></font></div><div><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)</font></font></div><div><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font 
class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" face="Calibri">Telephone: +1 603 574 
4892</font></font></div><div><font class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" 
color="#000000"><font class="oneComWebmail-Apple-style-span" 
face="Calibri">Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx</font></font></div><div><br 
/></div></div></div><div><br 
/></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>