[Discussion-igo-rc] Further GAC comments: Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent

[Tom Dale]

Dear All

Please see comments below from Switzerland concerning the circulated briefs.

These should be read in conjunction with Jorge's e-mail to this list of 17 January.

At this point there are no further comments from GAC members on the circulated materials.

Regards

Tom Dale
ACIG GAC Secretariat

ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group
evaluate :: improve :: innovate

Cell:       + 61 418 207 376
tom at acig.com.au
www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/>

ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.

From: "Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>" <Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch<mailto:Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch>>
Date: Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 1:50 AM
To: Thomas Dale <tom at acig.com.au<mailto:tom at acig.com.au>>, "gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>" <gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>>
Subject: AW: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent

Dear Tom, and dear all,

Thank you very much for sharing this important information with the GAC.

We are hopeful that this facilitation processes may bear a fruitful and acceptable result for all interested parties, and be consistent with the need, expressed so many times by the GAC, to convey an appropriate protection to IGO and Red Cross names and acronyms.

On the documents circulated we would like to make the following comments:

Document “Outline of proposed process…”:

·         The commitment of both the GAC and GNSO to respect any agreed outcomes, without prejudice to internal procedures, should probably be clearer. I don’t think we would like to engage in a time-consuming process, if that commitment is not there.



·         It should be clear that ICANN policy (both existing and future) on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is  logically bound to it as far as applicable.



·         We expect that the IGOs and the ICRC will designate representatives to participate in both work tracks. Switzerland is available for participating on both tracks too (not only the Red Cross one)



Both “Draft problem statement” documents:

·         The existing temporary protections both for IGOs and ICRC should be identified and summarized in the briefings. They should be maintained in all cases, until an agreed satisfactory solution is found.



·         The “problem” statement in both documents (with the header “the problem” in both docs) includes the proviso that “where practicable, any protection mechanism to be developed should take advantage of similar mechanisms…” – while this may be a consideration to be made, it is not part of the problem as such, and should be removed from the “problem statement”


Under the IGO document, “the objective” statement establishes the condition that solutions should “be based on applicable international law principles” – while we agree that international law, where existing, is important and has to be abided to, we should not forget, as said above, that ICANN policy on these topics is based on policy (also public policy-) considerations. It not only implements law - although it is  logically bound to it as far as applicable.


In addition to these comments, we would like to defer to the detailed comments the IGOs and the ICRC may consider appropriate to make on the three documents.

With kind regards

Jorge Cancio


Von: gac-bounces at gac.icann.org<mailto:gac-bounces at gac.icann.org> [mailto:gac-bounces at gac.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Tom Dale
Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 21:44
An: gac at icann.org<mailto:gac at icann.org>
Betreff: [GAC] GAC: Update on Protections for IGOs/Red Cross Red Crescent

Dear GAC

Action Requested by GAC Chair:

 Please review the attached materials prepared by ICANN re protections for Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, and respond to the GAC list with any comments by cob 1 February 2017.

Background

The ICANN Board has asked former Board member Bruce Tonkin to facilitate a discussion getween the GAC and the GNSO to try to resolve differences on protections for names and acronyms of IGOs and the Red Crescent Red Crescent.

These are being treated as separate issues.

It is likely that there will be meetings with all parties at the Copenhagen meeting but no details have been finalised.

The attached briefings have been prepared by ICANN GNSO policy staff to assist with discussions.

The GAC Chair has asked that you review these and provide any comment to the GAC list by 1 February.

Regards




Tom Dale
ACIG GAC Secretariat

ACIG - Australian Continuous Improvement Group
evaluate :: improve :: innovate

Cell:       + 61 418 207 376
tom at acig.com.au<mailto:tom at acig.com.au>
www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au/>

ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat support to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/attachments/20170202/bb104c32/attachment-0001.html>