<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>Microsoft Word - GAC ICANN 58 Communique FINAL.docx</title>
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Is <a href="https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee?preview=/27132037/44663670/GAC%20ICANN%2058%20Communique.pdf">
here</a> and attached. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Note that they qualified all their advice at this meeting as “Consensus Advice” per the new bylaws.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>GAC Advice is excerpted below (highlights are mine)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700;">1. Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">Re-affirming previous GAC Advice for a permanent reservation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers, the GAC acknowledges the conclusions of the facilitated dialogue held
during ICANN 58 on resolving outstanding differences between the GAC’s previous advice and the GNSO's past recommendations to the Board on the protections of the names and identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations.
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">Consistent with the conclusions of the abovementioned dialogue,
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'; font-weight: 700">a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to:
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">I. <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">
request the GNSO without delay to re-examine its 2013 recommendations pertaining to the protections of Red Cross and Red Crescent names and identifiers (defined as “Scope 2” names in the GNSO process) which were inconsistent with GAC Advice.
</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700;">2. IGO Protections</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">The GAC notes that a dialogue facilitated by the Board on this topic has begun between the GAC and the GNSO (including its relevant Working Groups). The GAC expects that these discussions would
resolve the long-outstanding issue of IGO acronym protections and understands that temporary protections will continue to remain in place until such time as a permanent agreed solution is found. Based upon the facilitated discussions up to this stage,
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'; font-weight: 700">a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to:
</span></p>
<p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);"><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">I. pursue implementation of (i) a permanent system of notification to IGOs regarding second-level registration of strings that match their acronyms
in up to two languages and (ii) a parallel system of notification to registrants for a more limited time period, in line with both previous GAC advice and GNSO recommendations</span><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'; font-weight: 700">;
</span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 8">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<ol start="2" style="list-style-type: upper-roman">
<li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">facilitate continued discussions in order to develop a resolution that will reflect (i) the fact that IGOs are in an objectively unique category of rights holders and (ii) a
better understanding of relevant GAC Advice, particularly as it relates to IGO immunities recognized under international law as noted by IGO Legal Counsels;</span> and
</span></p>
</li><li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">urge the Working Group for the ongoing PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms to take into account the GAC’s comments on the Initial Report.
</span></p>
</li></ol>
<p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700;">3. Mitigation of Domain Name Abuse</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'; font-weight: 700">a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to:
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">I<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">. provide written responses to the questions listed in the Follow-up Scorecard attached to this Communique, no later than 5 May 2017 for appropriate
consideration by the GAC before the ICANN 59 meeting in Johannesburg, taking into account that the ICANN President and CEO will act as contact point for the GAC in this matter.
</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">RATIONALE </span>
</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">The GAC is seeking to assess the effectiveness of its Advice to the ICANN Board.
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">Annex 1 of the GAC Hyderabad Communiqué listed a number of questions to conduct such assessment in relation to Advice implemented as part of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the
New gTLD Registry Agreement. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">The GAC is also interested in assessing the contribution of the SSR and Contractual Compliance departments of ICANN to the prevention and mitigation of domain name abuse.
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">While ICANN responded to Annex 1 of the GAC Hyderabad Communiqué, the information provided was not sufficient to conduct the necessary assessments.
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 9"><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700;">4. 2-Character Country/Territory Codes at the Second Level</span><br>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">In light of the discussions with the ICANN Board in Copenhagen on the Board Resolution of<br>
8 November 2016 and its implementation of 13 December 2016 regarding two-letter country codes as second level domains,
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'; font-weight: 700">a. The GAC advises the ICANN Board to:
</span></p>
<ol style="list-style-type: upper-roman">
<li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Take into account the serious concerns expressed by some GAC Members as contained in previous GAC Advice
</span></p>
</li><li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Engage with concerned governments by the next ICANN meeting to resolve those concerns.
</span></p>
</li><li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Immediately explore measures to find a satisfactory solution of the matter to meet the concerns of these countries before being further aggravated.
</span></p>
</li><li style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">
<p><span style="font-size: 12pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 0);">Provide clarification of the decision-making process and of the rationale for the November 2016 resolution, particularly in regard to consideration of the GAC advice, timing and level of
support for this resolution. </span></p>
</li></ol>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">RATIONALE </span>
</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 12.000000pt; font-family: 'Calibri'">The GAC noted serious concerns expressed by some governments about the consequences introduced by the changes created by the 8 November 2016 Resolution. In particular, according to the new procedure
it is no longer mandatory for the registries to notify governments of the plans for their use of 2-letter codes, nor are registries required to seek agreement of governments when releasing two-letter country codes at the second level, which, for example, allows
registries to charge governments substantial fees. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div id="MAC_OUTLOOK_SIGNATURE"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>