[council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration

[Mason Cole]

Please excuse my late reply on this as I'm just back from a holiday which had me out of e-mail reach for an extended period.

Allow me to make note of two communications on the IGO matter.  (There were previous communications on IGO protection, dating back to December 2011, but I don't believe they were sent by / addressed to a UN agency, as are these, but by a collection of IGO legal counsel):

First, the GAC's letter to the Board of 12 April 2012, including:

"Firstly, the GAC reaffirms previous advice that the IOC and Red Cross and Red Crescent should be protected at the top and second levels, given that these organizations enjoy protection at both the international level through international treaties (e.g. the Nairobi Treaty and the Geneva Conventions) and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions. The GAC considers the existence of such two-­-tiered protection as creating the criteria relevant to determining whether any other entities should be afforded comparable enhanced protection.

The GAC has considered the Board’s request for policy advice on the expansion of protections to include IGOs and advises that in the event that additional IGOs are found to meet the above criteria, this would be a consideration in the formulation of GAC advice for IGO protections in future rounds, as well as consideration of protections for IGOs, more generally.

Therefore, the GAC advises that no additional protections should be afforded to IGOs, beyond the current protections found in the Applicant Guidebook, for the current round."

Second, the GAC's Prague communique:

"Mindful of its previous GAC advice to the Board on protection of names and acronyms of international organisations enjoying protection at both the international level through international treaties and through national laws in multiple jurisdictions, such as Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, and recognizing the importance of assuring equal treatment of qualifying international organisations under the same criteria, the GAC is carefully considering the issue, with a view to providing further advice to the Board at a time suitable to the GNSO consideration of this issues (sic) expected in July."

Perhaps I'm making incorrect inferences, but while a) the April letter is very clear that the GAC advises against additional protection, and b) I believe the council received some level of assurance that the IOC/RC request was unique thanks to their particular status under international law, the communique seems to suggest IGOs could rise to equal status with the IOC and RC.  Perhaps the GAC is preparing to reverse its previous advice.

With regard to the content of the issue -- the protection of IGO names -- I believe we have only the April advice of the GAC on which to rely, with a later notification in its communique that it is again considering the protection issue.

With regard to the process that applies to the issue -- how to go about achieving protection through policy, if warranted -- I agree with John that we have plenty of heat, and some light would be more useful.  I understand the UN is frustrated by perceived delay.  I also understand very clearly not everyone sees the rationale behind ICANN policymaking procedures and the practical necessity of relying on them and not freelancing policy.

To Stephane's question, I agree a reply could be useful (perhaps including the correspondence between IGO legal counsel and staff earlier this year).  Further informing that reply might be a better understanding of what change, if any, the GAC may make to its April advice, and a review of the board's rationale for voting down the GNSO's recommendation to approve IOC/RC protection.

Finally, I too am interested in Jeff's input as chair of the DT.

Mason


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of john at crediblecontext.com
Sent: Fri 8/3/2012 8:53 AM
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; GNSO Council List
Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
 

Stephane, 

Circumventing the process was very much on the mind of the Council in
Costa Rica, the meeting at which the matter of IGO protections was first
put front-and-center.  Our response then should inform our actions now.

Recall that on March 26 went sent a letter to Board Chair Steve Crocker
and then-CEO Rod Beckstrom committing to the the organization's
principles.  The UN has an advocate at ICANN in the GAC.  GAC has the
responsibility to offer advice to the Board.  If that advice affects
policy, the Board then forwards to the Council.

Has the Board gotten such advice?  Has the Board engaged the Council? 
With this much heat, I am surprised there has not be more light.

As a Council member, I want us to do what we can, where we can, when we
can.  No less, no more.

Cheers,

John Berard
Founder
Credible Context
58 West Portal Avenue, #291
San Francisco, CA 94127
m: 415.845.4388



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting
exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
Date: Thu, August 02, 2012 3:29 am
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>

Councillors,

Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to the GAC Chair and myself
on the protection of IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD
programme.

As this is the latest in a long line of correspondence sent to ICANN on
the matter, I feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council should be
providing clearer responses to the question of the protection of IGO
names that it has done so far. I am not advocating any specific
direction for that response, merely suggesting that any response might
be desirable at this time, rather than no response.

As we all know, substantial work has been undertaken on the question of
the IOC and RC names, culminating in a recommendation being sent to the
Board. It is therefore clear that, from a GNSO point of view, the issue
has been handled through our normal processes as part of the bottom-up
PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN.

As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid any potential attempts
at circumventing the GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any
formal response the GNSO has provided to the IGOs, I wonder if one would
be appropriate and would like to have the Council's opinion on this. I
would also appreciate getting Jeff's opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT.

Thanks,

Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT

Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Alina Syunkova <alina.syunkova at icann.org>
> Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
> Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC
> À : Heather Dryden <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, "stephane.vangelder at indom.com" <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Cc : Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Heather and Stephane,
> 
> Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles today. It is addressed to both of you.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you,
> -- Alina Syunkova
> 
> Board Support Coordinator
> ICANN
> Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972
> Skype: alina.syunkova.icann
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20120808/2aab20c4/attachment.html>