[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections

Wed Jul 22 19:56:48 UTC 2015

Dear all,

Regarding the appointment of an external legal expert - staff has been
working to identify a number of qualified legal experts who may be
available to provide this WG with the advice it seeks. During the past few
weeks, we have contacted the ones who have through various sources been
recommended to us, including by members of this WG, and updated the draft
questions in line with the last WG email thread on the topic. Our plan is
to develop a short list of interested experts who may be able to provide
you with the input sought, following initial conversations with the ones
we have tried to contact.

Regarding the work of the ³small group² - as mentioned previously, the
³small group² was formed to serve as the primary forum for Board-GAC
discussions on the issue of IGO protections. This took place during the
ongoing NGPC-GAC discussions over the NGPC¹s March 2014 proposal. The NGPC
proposal had been expressly requested by the Board, in a Board resolution
in February 2014 that had also acknowledged the GNSO¹s policy
recommendations from the initial (2012-13) PDP and asked for more time to
consider them. Although the Board subsequently adopted some of the GNSO¹s
policy recommendations in April 2014, these did not include those that
were inconsistent with GAC advice on the topic of IGO protections. The
³small group² has therefore been working to further refine the NGPC
proposal in order for the GAC and the GNSO to be in a position to resolve
those inconsistencies. The GNSO has been aware of the NGPC proposal, the
ongoing discussions, and the existence of the ³small group² for some time
(see, e.g., the discussions between the GNSO Council and Chris Disspain,
and the correspondence between the GNSO Chair and the NGPC, between mid-
to late 2014).

Do note that the letter specifically mentions that the updated proposal
will be sent to the GNSO. There is also to be a meeting between the
relevant GNSO representatives (including our WG co-chairs), the GAC Chair
and Chris Disspain from the NGPC on this matter. Further, previous GAC
Commmuniques and communications from the NGPC had expressly acknowledged
the scope of work of this PDP WG, which is of course relevant to the
outcome of the overall discussion on IGO protections.

I believe I¹ve previously sent around links to the relevant Board
resolutions, GAC Communiques and GNSO Council discussions on this topic so
I am not including them in this note, but do let me know if anyone would
like me to resend them.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

-----Original Message-----
From: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating
<paul at law.es>
Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 15:09
To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Letter on IGO protections

>Mary, Phil and Petter.
>
>It seems to me test there are now a number of "groups" acting under the
>assumption that  they have been tasked with the authority to determine
>this issue and to provide "solutions". I am not clear if this letter is
>from the same or from a different group than the "small group" (whatever
>that is in reality).
>
>Can you please let us know whether this letter is written by a group
>acting under the ambit of authority?
>
>Finally I am growing quite perturbed by the apparent lack of legal
>support for the WG. We have, following advice from
>Staff, provided a narrow request for funds to obtain a qualified legal
>opinion. However, I have not seen any apparent progress on a request for
>funding or any authorization to retain counsel on this important issue.
>
>We are approaching a point where conspiratorially minded persons might
>think the failure to authorize competent legal advisors is an effort to
>eliminate the legal basis for what is seemingly forming as a consensus in
>favor of a political approach which is not founded upon legal principals.
> I for one surely hope this is not the case.
>
>I therefore reiterated my requests that :
>
>1. The authorization be obtained for a competent qualified legal advisor
>to assist the WG regarding immunity issues ( a copy
>Of the actual funding request must be circulated to the WG): and,
>
>2. Disclosure of the members of the now multiple groups apparently
>"working" on the same task assigned to this WG - namely the "small
>working group" and this who worked in the preparation of the letter
>referenced below. 
>
>Sincerely,
>Paul Keating, Esq.
>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 8:54 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Why would this letter have any meaning whatsoever? This PDP is
>> supposed to be based on data, research, law, etc. The IGOs appear to
>> be planning to just put out a position statement or proposal, without
>> any data, research, law, etc., as just a means of circumventing the
>> formal process (this very PDP) that ICANN has put in place to make
>> sure that all stakeholders are represented.
>> 
>> They even made the questionable statement that this issue is "becoming
>> increasingly critical as time goes by" -- where's the data/evidence to
>> substantiate that assertion? IGOs have been treated just like
>> everybody else for the past 30 years, and the UDRP has existed for
>> more than 15 years, and the world hasn't come to an end.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Dear WG members,
>>> 
>>> We would like to draw your attention to the following letter that was
>>>just
>>> sent by the OECD Secretary-General to ICANN¹s CEO Fadi Chehade:
>>> 
>>>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gurria-to-chehade-2
>>>0jul15-en.pdf.
>>> You will see that the letter references the recent Paris meeting that
>>>Phil
>>> and Petter are expecting to follow up on with the NGPC, GAC Chair and
>>>other
>>> GNSO representatives. In light of the GAC¹s recent Buenos Aires
>>>Communique
>>> that noted Dublin as a key milestone for resolving the overall issue
>>>of IGO
>>> protections, we thought you might find this letter of interest.
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Mary
>>> 
>>> Mary Wong
>>> Senior Policy Director
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>_______________________________________________
>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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150722/cb3b8269/smime.p7s>