Re: [council] Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council letter to the ICANN Board

[David Cake <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with James. There is no doubt that the legal protection issues for the 
Red Cross and Red Crescent etc are unique, very strong, and not the same as the 
IGOs. 
But the council manages policy, it does not rule on substantive issues, and the 
legal basis is an example of the substantive issue that was thoroughly 
discussed by that WG. The ICRC may disagree with some of their decisions,and 
there is room for further discussion, but as a council we are limited in what 
we can do - we can only reconstitute the working group, the situation is not 
yet right for that, and that working group concerned IGO/INGO issues as well, 
and so as a council it is appropriate for us to consider them together. 

On substantive issues of law, they are very different cases. Procedurally 
however, they are linked, and council manages procedure. 

The ICRC are a vital organisation with a very strong legal basis for some of 
the rights they want here. But they can be wrong in their opinion as to how 
those issues translate to the domain name policy space, and they absolutely can 
(and have been) wrong about how best to deal with ICANN, specifically GNSO, 
policy processes. Some of you will remember their contribution to the London 
GAC communique, which I certainly was not happy about. 

David



> On 25 May 2016, at 11:17 AM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Donna and Phil for contributing your thoughts to this thread.
> 
> I agree with Phil (and the Red Cross) that the legal issues underlying these 
> topics are distinctly different, and we should -not– include or reference the 
> report from the advisors to the Curative Rights PDP.  
> 
> However, both the RC and IGO/INGO issues were unanimously approved as part of 
> the same PDP by our predecessors in 2013, and both are on hold pending 
> further action for the Board.  As a result, I don’t think we, as a Council 
> are linking them, and it’s appropriate for us to include them together in the 
> same letter.
> 
> Thanks -
> 
> J.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
> behalf of "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 13:07 
> To: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Mary Wong 
> <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
> <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [council] RE: Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council 
> letter to the ICANN Board
> 
> Hi Phil
>  
> The RySG does not dispute the legal basis for RC protections; however, we are 
> very concerned that if the RC and IGO acronym issues are decoupled it may 
> take even longer to resolve the IGO acronym issue. The Council is not causing 
> the delay in resolving any of these outstanding issues—that delay is the 
> result of the Board, or the NGPC, not making any progress on this issue in 
> the last two or so years. My preference is to send the letter as drafted and 
> decide on next steps after we have received a response from the Board.
>  
> I also have some reservations about the manner in which the RC is lobbying 
> the Council as evidenced by their most recent communication: I think we need 
> to be careful that this is not perceived by some as unfair treatment.
>  
> Donna
>  
> Donna Austin:Neustar, Inc.
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
> Cell:+1.310.890.9655 Email: donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>  
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have 
> received this communication in error, please notify me immediately and delete 
> the original message.
> Follow Neustar:   <image003.png> Facebook 
> <http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc>   <image004.png> LinkedIn 
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349>   <image005.png> Twitter 
> <http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] 
> On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 6:18 AM
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>; 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] RE: Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council 
> letter to the ICANN Board
>  
> In view of this new letter from the Red Cross, I’d again urge that Council 
> refrain from insisting that its issues be decided in tandem with the much 
> broader IGO issues. If we have an opportunity to settle the red Cross matter 
> on its own separate merits there’s no reason to hold it hostage to other 
> matters.
>  
> Thanks for considering that POV.
>  
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>  
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>  
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>  
> From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>] 
> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:47 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Note from the Red Cross on the proposed GNSO Council 
> letter to the ICANN Board
>  
> Dear Councilors,
>  
> Please see the message below that was sent by the Red Cross representatives 
> yesterday. On behalf of the Council and the chairs, staff have acknowledged 
> receipt of the note.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
>  
>  
>  
> From: Salah Mathlouthi <smathlouthi@xxxxxxxx <mailto:smathlouthi@xxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 23:59
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:nigel.hickson@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
> Charlotte Lindsey Curtet <clindsey@xxxxxxxx <mailto:clindsey@xxxxxxxx>>, 
> Stephane Hankins <shankins@xxxxxxxx <mailto:shankins@xxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Draft GNSO Communication to the Board - Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> protections
>  
> Dear Mary,
>   
> We hope this message finds you well.
>   
> (1) We have received a copy of the GNSO Council’s intended letter to ICANN’s 
> Board seeking an update from the Board on next steps in regard to the dual 
> issues of the protections of “Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers” and 
> “International Government organizations acronyms”, and suggesting that both 
> sets of issues be addressed “in tandem”.  We also note that the draft letter 
> refers to the issues of the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> designations and names and to IGO acronyms in the singular (“as one”), and 
> thus, in disregard of the distinct legal regimes and policy issues at stake.
> We would like herewith to express our deep concern in this regard and to 
> request, in line with the consistent positions and representations made by 
> the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations to the Board and to ICANN 
> constituencies in the last years, including the GNSO, that the protections 
> that are due to the red cross and red crescent designations and names require 
> to be considered in their own right and distinctiveness.
> 
> (2) As you will no doubt recall, and as reminded by the ICRC during its 
> meeting with the
> GNSO’s leadership members in Marrakesh and in its oral intervention during 
> the GNSO 
> Council session held on 14 April 2016, the protections due to the red cross 
> and red crescent 
> designations and names find their source in 
> -     universally agreed and compulsory norms of international humanitarian 
> law and in   the domestic laws in force in multiple national jurisdictions; 
> as well as in
> -     the distinct global public interest in ensuring respect and protection 
> for these  designations and names from improper or unauthorised use 
> (including in situations of humanitarian emergencies in which the  Red Cross 
> and Red Crescent identifiers are at particular risk of fraudulent use on the 
> Internet).
> 
> This makes up a unique and sui generis case for the permanent and 
> unconditional reservation of these designations and names from registration 
> as top and second domain names. 
> 
> This has been recognized by the Board and the NGPC in particular in its past 
> determinations which have confirmed that the Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> protections as distinct. This also conforms to the GAC’s consistent advice on 
> this matter as outlined in recent GAC Communiqués and that address the Red 
> Cross and Red Crescent protections in stand-alone and separate paragraphs. 
>   
> (3) While the initial GNSO recommendations regarding the protections of the 
> Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and names may have indeed been 
> developed in the context of a broader PDP (“On the protection of IGO and INGO 
> Identifiers in all gTLD’s”), the question of the Red Cross and Red Crescent 
> reservations have since remained separate from the IGO/INGO issues and must 
> continue to merit a distinct treatment and consideration. 
> 
> We are hence of the view that any suggestion that the Red Cross and Red 
> Crescent protections could or should be re-coupled, or be addressed “in 
> tandem”, with the protections called for in regard to IGO’s and their 
> acronyms, would represent an undue retreat on ICANN’s most recent 
> determinations, approaches and processes. 
> 
> We would like to thank the GNSO for its kind attention to the above concerns. 
> We remain  available to support and/or to attend any future consultations in 
> this matter to be held, for instance, during ICANN 57 in Helsinki. 
> 
> Sincerely yours, 
> 
> Stéphane 
> 
>   
> Stéphane J. Hankins 
> Legal adviser 
> Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement
> International Committee of the Red Cross
> Direct line: ++0041 22 730 24 19
>   
>   
>   
> 
> -----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 23/05/2016 
> 16:31 -----
> A : Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC@ICRC
> De : Daiana Barbancho Savage/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC
> Date : 23/05/2016 14:03
> Cc : Charlotte Lindsey Curtet/CIM_DIR/GVA/ICRC@ICRC
> Objet : Letter
> 
> (See attached file: docxKk10U26N6N.docx)
> 
> Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier
> ·        To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
> ·        Subject: Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names 
> & Identifier
> 
> ·        From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> ·        Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 04:22:37 +0000 
> 
> ·        Accept-language: en-US 
> 
> ·        List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> ·        Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> ·        Thread-index: AQHRsk89sbH/K1NLyEimzyoyZLHunQ== 
> 
> ·        Thread-topic: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names 
> & Identifier
> 
> ·        User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506 
> 
> <image006.gif>
> 
> Dear Councilors,
> 
> Following further consultations between the Council chairs and staff on this 
> matter, the chairs would like to provide the attached letter for your final 
> review before it is sent to the ICANN Board. Essentially, this is the version 
> suggested by the RySG (per Donna’s earlier note, below) but with a single 
> revision at the end of the second paragraph, to clarify that the GNSO’s IGO 
> and 
> Red Cross recommendations originated in a single PDP.
> 
> Please indicate any objections or concerns you may have with this proposed 
> final version of the letter to the Board by COB in your time zone on Monday 
> 23 
> May if at all possible, following which we will transmit the final letter to 
> the Board shortly thereafter on behalf of Donna, Heather, James and the 
> Council.
> 
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Telephone: +1-603-5744889
> 
> 
> From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "Austin, Donna" 
> <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2016 at 05:44
> To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & Identifier
> 
> James, all
> 
> Following on from the discussion on the Council call yesterday about next 
> steps 
> in resolving the issue of permanent protection of certain Red Cross 
> identifiers, the RySG has requested that the letter to the Board be amended 
> to 
> request an update/resolution of the outstanding issues related to the 
> permanent 
> protection of certain Red Cross identifiers and IGO acronyms. These issues 
> have 
> not previously been decoupled and we are concerned that if the Council 
> suggests 
> this as a path forward at this point it may be at the expense of resolving 
> the 
> remaining issues associated with IGO acronyms.
> 
> Proposed amendments to the letter are provided for consideration.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Donna
> 
> Donna Austin: Neustar, Inc.
> Policy and Industry Affairs Manager
> Cell: +1.310.890.9655 Email: 
> donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:donna.austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
> of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged 
> information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
> e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or 
> copying 
> of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> communication 
> in error, please notify me immediately and delete the original message.
> Follow Neustar:   [id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 
> <id:image001.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0>]  
> Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/neustarinc 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_neustarinc&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=Otgts-x-9gy7fBM6RIOfXiGDqs0U_vaXbILcRHxHqGg&e=>>
>    
> [id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 <id:image002.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0>]  
> LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_5349&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=-f_MetGwM9DlmlqKn30dcY7EGhL38-UaUvS1gOR1msA&e=>>
>    
> [id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0 <id:image003.png@01CC3CD3.5F595DC0>]  
> Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.twitter.com_neustar&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=R-zLSBSN_9b7LecTvTYN7GCVfz_lkbU878dzbt0fa24&e=>>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
> 
> Attachment: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 20 
> May.docx 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing-2Dlists_archives_council_docxKk10U26N6N.docx&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=Q4zUSKEPCNh8zbY1hXnAbkLkHt9cHTRJ6aqc29HHiMg&e=>
> Description: Updated Draft letter to ICANN Board on Red Cross protections - 
> 20 May.docx
> 
> <image007.gif>
> 
> ·        Follow-Ups: 
> 
> ·       Re: [council] Draft Letter to the Board on Red Cross Names & 
> Identifier 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_mailing-2Dlists_archives_council_msg18647.html&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=hUoSv-0fgo-G_gMGSK52_bmS62T5hGB9suBEkkzAcp8&e=>
>   
> 
> ·      From: David Cake 
> 
>  
> 
> ===============================================================================
>  The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict 
> and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icrc.org&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=TMxGokr-VbJwGdUptBoH3PKaBwLIZ_4sVRcbm3PCB6E&e=>
>  This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are 
> confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only 
> be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the 
> Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this 
> e-mail and notify the sender. 
> ===============================================================================
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DQMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=fTlWRtkW2ZwEAjI88ONYUD46f0kGflakxGZpsPRL8pU&s=vznsJGWbSQXrjOMDSqXl-zb89TTLZUisK_KpqXzI-C8&e=>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
> <image003.png><image004.png><image005.png><image006.gif><image007.gif>