[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GAC LA Communique on IGO-INGO Curative Rights WG

Mon Oct 20 16:39:43 UTC 2014

Dear David and everyone,

While the WG should certainly take into consideration the GAC’s advice from
the LA Communique in its deliberations, do note that any responses, queries
or communications to and with the GAC should be done through the GNSO
Council, as it is the manager of every policy development process initiated
within the GNSO. We therefore recommend that any clarifying questions that
this WG may wish to ask the GAC first be discussed at an upcoming WG meeting
and then (if applicable) transmitted on to the Council for its review and
communication to the GAC – which the Council may choose to do through Mason
Cole, the newly-appointed GNSO liaison to the GAC.

In Los Angeles, the Board and the GAC discussed the formation of a small
informal group of GAC members (including IGOs who are official Observers to
the GAC), to serve as a contact point and resource for our WG and the GNSO
Council. This will not of course replace the possibility of IGOs or GAC
members joining our WG directly as a member or observer (and staff has
received a few queries on that as a result of the Los Angeles meetings), but
may well be a more direct way for the GNSO as a body to interact with the
GAC on this particular issue, via each of its appointed representatives.

WG members should note also that individual GAC members cannot speak on
behalf of the GAC, whether informally via conversation or more formally via
joining a WG. GAC Communiques therefore remain the primary tool for the
dissemination of GAC consensus positions. In this regard, Mason has sent a
note to the GNSO Council following the GAC’s LA Communique noting that the
GAC’s mention of our PDP should be viewed as a positive step in the GAC’s
attempts at early engagement in a GNSO PDP. As this is the first GAC comment
on our PDP, the trend of GAC Communiques would indicate that such early
statements tend to be statements of positions, with rationales and details
developed subsequently via further debate and discussion.

Staff therefore recommends that the WG directs any follow up questions or
actions in relation to the GAC advice to the GNSO Council for its
consideration.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

From:  David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
Date:  Monday, October 20, 2014 at 2:10 AM
To:  Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
Cc:  "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GAC LA Communique on IGO-INGO Curative
Rights WG

> Clearly, much of this is directly relevant to the work of this group.
> 
> At the councils retreat on Friday, the idea was raised that the GNSO (via the
> Council) should provide some discussion of the GAC Communique to the board, so
> that the boards response to GAC advice can be more grounded in community
> input. 
> 
> Would this WG have a response to the GAC advice? My initial thought is that it
> is difficult to know how to interpret it (what aspect of the UDRP are
> problematic to the GAC), but that we should seek clarification of the issues
> that concern the GAC. I have had offers from GAC members to explain further
> the points of concern.
> 
> David
> 
> On 19 Oct 2014, at 11:24 am, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 
>> WG members:
>>  
>> On October 16th the GAC issued a Communique that is available
>> athttps://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Los%20Angeles_GAC%20
>> Communique_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413479079702&api=v2
>>  
>> On pp.6-7 of the Communique the following language relevant to the task of
>> our WG appears:
>>  
>> 3.      Protection of Inter--Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and
>> Acronyms
>> a.       The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban,
>> Buenos Aires, Singapore and London Communiqués regarding protection of IGO
>> names and acronyms at the top and second levels, as implementationof such
>> protection is in the public interest given that IGOs, as created
>> bygovernments under international law, are objectively different
>> rightholders; namely,
>> i.      Concerning preventative protection at the second level, the GAC
>> reminds the ICANN Board that notice of a match to an IGO name or acronym to
>> prospective registrants, as well as to the concernedIGO, should apply in
>> perpetuity for the concerned name andacronym in two languages, and at no cost
>> to IGOs;
>> ii.      Concerning curative protection at the second level, and notingthe
>> ongoing GNSO PDP on access to curative Rights Protection Mechanisms, the GAC
>> reminds the ICANN Board that any such mechanism should be at no or nominal
>> cost to IGOs; andfurther, in implementing any such curative mechanism,
>>  
>>  
>> b.      The GAC advises the ICANN Board:
>> 
>> i.      That the UDRP should not be amended; welcomes the NGPC'scontinued
>> assurance that interim protections remain in place pending the resolution of
>> discussions concerning preventativeprotection of IGO names and acronyms; and
>> supports continueddialogue between the GAC (including IGOs), the ICANN Board
>> (NGPC) and the GNSO to develop concrete solutions to implement
>> long--standing GAC advice. (Emphasis added)
>>  
>> 4.      Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent Names
>> The GAC welcomes the decision of the New gTLD Program Committee (Resolution
>> 2014.10.12.NG05) to provide temporary protections for the names of the
>> International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red
>> Cross and Red CrescentSocieties, and the 189 National Red Cross and Red
>> Crescent Societies. The GAC requests the ICANN Board and all relevant parties
>> to work quickly to resolve the longer term issues still outstanding.
>>  
>> In regard to the highlighted portions of the communique, the GAC makes clear
>> that it wants any new curative RPM to be available to IGOs at “no or nominal
>> cost”. This leaves open the question, should our WG choose to recommend the
>> creation of a new DRP, of whether the current costs of the URS and UDRP are
>> viewed as falling within the “nominal” range – and, if deemed by the GAC to
>> exceed such range, what party should assume the financial cost of subsidizing
>> access to any new DRP by IGOs.
>>  
>> In regard to the GAC’s statement that “the UDRP should not be amended”, in my
>> personal opinion this appears to be an overreaching attempt to foreclose the
>> possibility that this WG will determine that the UDRP should in fact be
>> amended to better accommodate the legitimate rights of IGOs, and that a new
>> curative rights process is not advisable, and as such should be rejected at
>> this time -- as it would only leave the option of creating a new curative
>> RPM. ICANN and the GNSO  have responded to the GAC’s concerns in regard to
>> IGOs by establishing this WG, but we should be free to pursue its work as its
>> members deem best without intervening attempts by the GAC to direct us to a
>> predetermined outcome.
>>  
>> Such intervention is manifestly different from the type of participation that
>> would be welcome from IGOs and GAC members, which is contributing to our
>> factual database and interaction in our ongoing and open dialogue. In this
>> regard, when the Board met with the GNSO Council in Sunday, October 12th the
>> activities of this WG were highlighted and there was dialogue concerning the
>> intervention of Board members to encourage GAC and IGO participation. The
>> transcript of that session is not yet available at
>> http://la51.icann.org/en/schedule/sun-gnso-working and I would therefore
>> solicit the assistance of ICANN staff in securing it so that we can review
>> that discussion and follow up on it.
>>  
>> In conclusion, it would be useful to have feedback from WG members in regard
>> to the relevant portions of the GAC Communique and in particular as to
>> whether we should prepare any reply in regard to its substance as well as to
>> solicit the participation of IGOs and GAC members in our work.
>>  
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Philip Corwin, Co-Chair
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 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
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141020/b36aa82e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5033 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20141020/b36aa82e/smime-0001.p7s>