[Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation

Tue Mar 7 05:45:51 UTC 2017

Dear Bruce and Donna,

I would in fact very much welcome such a summary of the rationale of the PDP WG recommendations.

Please include direct quotations of the relevant passages from the final recommendation report of 2013.

thanks and regards

Jorge

________________________________

Von: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Datum: 7. März 2017 um 06:29:32 MEZ
An: discussion-igo-rc at icann.org <discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation

Hello Donna,

Are you able to draft a suitable paragraph?   The aim here is to be brief and to the point to allow those that are not experts on the issue to read while they are travelling to the event.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna
Sent: Tuesday, 7 March 2017 10:12 AM
To: Stephane Hankins <shankins at icrc.org>; Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; discussion-igo-rc at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation

Mary, all

Is it possible to incorporate in the briefing document the rationale for the PDP WG’s recommendations as they relate to Red Cross names? I think it is important for us to understand the distinction made by the PDP WG between Scope 1 and Scope 2 Identifiers and why they were treated differently.

The Briefing note currently states, among other things:

November 2013: The GNSO Council adopts<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2> the consensus recommendations contained in the Final Report of the PDP Working Group[1], including protections at the top and second level for certain Red Cross and Red Crescent names and acronyms (notably for the designations “Red Cross”, “Red Crescent”, “Red Crystal” and “Red Lion and Sun”), but excluding the protections and reservations called for, in accordance with the GAC’s advice, for

- the names of the then-189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in English and in the official languages of their respective States of origin;

- the  names of the two international organizations of the Movement (in the 6 UN languages) and their usual acronyms.

The ICRC and the International Federation present a Minority Position Statement that is annexed to the GNSO’s Final Report.[2]
In my view we need more information regarding the rationale for the PDP WG recommendations.

Thanks

Donna

From: discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Hankins
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 6:20 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; discussion-igo-rc at icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation

Dear Mary, dear Olof, dear all,

(1) Many thanks to Mr Tonkin and to ICANN Staff for circulating the various Briefing documents on the Red Cross and Red Crescent Protections. These will be very helpful in preparation for next Saturday's meeting and for achieving what, we hope, will provide a concrete outcome and resolution.

On behalf of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Organisations, we are sharing herewith our comments on the Briefing Document circulated last Friday.

We note that a new problem Statement has now been received, which we will also review.

(2) Please note that the Agenda for ICANN 58 in Copenhagen, as posted on line, does not yet include a mention of Saturday's Working session on the Red Cross and Red Crescent protections.

Also, if, as discussed during the recent telephone conference, a preparatory meeting is still envisaged on Friday afternoon, could you kindly confirm this as well.

Looking forward to meeting you in Copenhagen and with kind regards,

Stéphane

Stéphane J. Hankins
Legal adviser
Cooperation and coordination within the Movement
International Committee of the Red Cross
Tel (direct line): ++0041 22 730 24 19

From:        Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
To:        "discussion-igo-rc at icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>" <discussion-igo-rc at icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>>
Date:        03.03.2017 05:34
Subject:        [Discussion-igo-rc] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated documentation
Sent by:        discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org<mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces at icann.org>
________________________________

Dear all,

On behalf of Bruce Tonkin, the designated facilitator for the ongoing discussions, please find attached: (1) an updated Problem Statement on IGO acronyms, based on the email discussions to date and including the suggestions made by Jon Passaro and Phil Corwin; (2) an updated Process Framework document, based on participants’ feedback and the call on Red Cross protections that took place this past Monday; and (3) an initial draft of the Briefing Paper on Red Cross protections – all for your review and this group’s continuing discussions.

You can also find copies of all three documents on the Discussion Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/hIPRAw<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_hIPRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=UvDJz3fKGFmm-w5KB6m9rZduw-JnmTg3HgovPugQJYU&s=EcjfUuc33XFkwMhFY7pq9li58Ofh5R544czZdiPcwLU&e=>.

An updated Problem Statement on the topic of Red Cross protections (based on the Monday call), and an initial draft of a Briefing Paper on IGO acronyms, is being prepared and should be available for circulation very shortly.

Thanks and cheers
Mary and Olof (on behalf of Bruce)[attachment "IGO Problem Statement - updated 2 March 2017.docx" deleted by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC] [attachment "Outline of Proposed Process for Facilitated GAC-GNSO Dialogue on IGO  Red Cross Protections - updated 2 March 2017.docx" deleted by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC] [attachment "Briefing Document - Red Cross - updated 2 March 2017.docx" deleted by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC] _______________________________________________
Discussion-igo-rc mailing list
Discussion-igo-rc at icann.org<mailto:Discussion-igo-rc at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion-igo-rc<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_discussion-2Digo-2Drc&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=4A3LwUUER9_CePZ11QJsr56eryGQiPHEqv4TL7JH87w&m=UvDJz3fKGFmm-w5KB6m9rZduw-JnmTg3HgovPugQJYU&s=a1itsE__ez6J7fZF9DpnhkM0_VGbF2fWGpG9l2LZHhA&e=>

=============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org<http://www.icrc.org> 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. ===============================================================================

________________________________

________________________________

[1] See the Final Report from the PDP Working Group (November 2013), e.g. at p. 11: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf.

[2] Accessible at https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf.

Reference should also be made to the Public Comment submitted by the legal advisers of over 60 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to the ICANN community on the Initial Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (dated 4 July 2013).

(accessible at: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-initial-14jun13/msg00000.html)