[Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent Names and Identifiers

Tue Aug 8 15:27:29 UTC 2017

All,

I think it is quite clearly outside our remit to consider "a policy
recommendation ... to ensure and confirm access to curative rights
mechanisms" for the ICRC and IFRC acronyms.

First, there is an active PDP Working Group considering the issue of
curative rights for IGOs/INGOs, including Red Cross-related strings. I
trust this is not a surprise to anyone on this email list.  The issue of
such curative rights is self-evidently within their remit.  It would not be
appropriate, to say the least, for our group to comment, much less make a
policy recommendation, on curative rights mechanisms.    See
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/IGO-INGO+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+PDP+Home

Second, the remit of our reconvened Working Group is narrow by design.  To
quote from the GNSO Council resolution (emphasis added):

1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of
the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that *the PDP
Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO
Council on the following proposed amendment* to Recommendation 5 in Section
3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report:

(a) The full names of the now-190 Red Cross National Societies and *the
full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be
placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement*, with an
exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross
Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected
string at the second level;

(b) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the
Registry Agreement, *this should apply to an exact match of* the full name
of the relevant National Society recognized within the International Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of
its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the
Red Cross and of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined
limited set of variations of these names; and

(c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of
the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as
well as of the GAC's public policy advice to reserve the finite list of
names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized
within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs.

Given the above, it is not within our remit to consider curative rights of
any sort, and not within our remit to consider rights of any sort for
acronyms.  Thus, I have to reject in no uncertain terms the "conclusion
that [Stephane and Charlotte] intended to underscore."  I would also like
to take this opportunity to politely caution us in general against "mission
creep."

Best regards,

Greg

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Stephane Hankins <shankins at icrc.org> wrote:

> Dear James,
>
> Thank you for this. Regarding the ICRC and IFRC acronyms, this is also the
> conclusion we intended to underscore - namely that, while the ICRC and IFRC
> acronyms may/do not meet the third test as agreed during the Facilitated
> Discussions in Copenhagen (that there be no other legitimate users for the
> String) - a policy recommendation be made to ensure and confirm access to
> curative rights mechanisms.
>
> As recalled in Charlotte's last message, access to (cost neutral) curative
> rights mechanisms for the acronyms would also be congruent with the the
> GAC's own past advice (as adopted in Durban in July 2013) and our
> suggestion would be that the reconvened WG and the GNSO consider to also
> adopt a recommendation to this effect.
>
> This is mindful of the objectives sought of reconciling the GNSO's 2013
> Recommendations with the GAC's past advice.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Stéphane (and Charlotte)
>
>
>
> From:        "jbladel at godaddy.com" <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> To:        Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>, 'Stephane
> Hankins' <shankins at icrc.org>
> Cc:        "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> Date:        08.08.2017 15:31
> Subject:        Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20
> July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks to Chuck, Stephane and especially Charlotte for their valuable
> contributions in this thread.
>
> If we go back to the Facilitated Discussions in Copenhagen, we landed on
> three factors for reconsidering protections for RC/RC strings in the DNS
> (note, these are also reflected in the GNSO Council resolution that
> re-activated this PDP).  Roughly paraphrased, they were:
>
>    - That the protections were based upon / reflected in national and
>    international law, and
>    - That the list of covered strings was finite, and was amended only
>    via consistent & visible processes, and
>    - There were no other legitimate uses for the string.
>
>
> Circling back to Charlotte’s message, her points (1) and (2) and (3) are
> meant to establish that the first two tests are being met. Similarly,
> points (3) and (5) help to define the list of covered strings as finite,
> and only occasionally modified via well-established processes (Marshall
> Islands). However, I believe that point (4) (ICRC and IFRC) fail the third
> test:  requiring that there are no other legitimate uses for the strings.
>
> This is always a problem with acronyms, as they often collide with
> unrelated terms, organizations, or industries.  For example, a quick search
> of “ICRC” notes that while this string is commonly associated with the
> International Committee of the Red Cross, it is also used by the Indiana
> Civil Rights Commission, the International Certification and Reciprocity
> Consortium, the Intercollege Relations Commission, and the International
> Conference of Reformed Churches.  Policies should not prohibit or reserve
> the use of these strings in gTLDs, but rather ensure access to curative
> rights for the RC (or any of the other organizations) that are harmed when
> these strings are abused.
>
> Thanks—
>
> J.
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Chuck Gomes
> Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> * Date: *Monday, August 7, 2017 at 10:51
> * To: *'Stephane Hankins' <shankins at icrc.org>
> * Cc: *"'gnso-secs at icann.org'" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> * Subject: *Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20
> July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
> Stephane,
>
> You in essence did what I was suggesting Charlotte do.  It wasn’t that I
> didn’t understand but rather that it was a fairly complicated and long
> message that I thought would benefit from a simpler explanation.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:* Stephane Hankins [mailto:shankins at icrc.org <shankins at icrc.org>]
> * Sent:* Monday, August 7, 2017 12:50 AM
> * To:* Chuck Gomes Consulting <consult at cgomes.com>
> * Cc:* 'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet' <clindsey at icrc.org>;
> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org; gnso-secs at icann.org
> * Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20
> July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> Could you kindly clarify for us what is unclear. Charlotte's message below
> is to us written in a reasonably plain language.
>
> Point (2) aims to explicate what, in our understanding, an ammendment to
> the GNSO's 2013 Recommendations would imply in order to achieve a
> reconciliation with past GAC advice.
>
> Point (3) suggests that in the interest of achieving a reconciliation of
> the 2013 GNSO recommendation and GAC advice, consideration would also
> require to be given to the full names of the ICRC and of the International
> Federation (the two international bodies within the International red Cross
> and Red Crescent Movement), in addition to the identifiers of National Red
> Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
>
> Point (4) confirms our ask regarding the ICRC and IFRC acronyms and
> suggests that the reconvened WG also consider to issue a recommendation in
> regard to the latter (in line with the GAC advice).
>
> Point (5) recalls our availability to provide a revised list of name in
> the interest of consistency, as discussed and requested in Copenhagen.
>
> If the concern is regarding the attachments, please advise what you think
> could be helpful. The suggestion was made, if I am not mistaken during the
> last WG session, that further clarity be provided regarding the legal
> grounds for the protections for the Red Cross and Red Crescent identifiers
> - this is what the attached Report (and its annexes) seek to provide.
>
> Many thanks and kind regards,
>
> Stéphane (and Charlotte - presently on leave)
>
>
>
> From:        "Chuck Gomes Consulting" <*consult at cgomes.com*
> <consult at cgomes.com>>
> To:        "'Charlotte Lindsey Curtet'" <*clindsey at icrc.org*
> <clindsey at icrc.org>>, <*gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org* <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> >
> Cc:        *gnso-secs at icann.org* <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Date:        06.08.2017 19:11
> Subject:        Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20
> July 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
> Sent by:        *gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org*
> <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for this Charlotte.  I appreciate the need for being precise when
> writing legal language but found that I had to read this several times to
> grasp what is said.  It would be helpful for me if your message was briefly
> summarized with a list of the key points made.
>
> Chuck
>
> * From:* *gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org*
> <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> [
> *mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org* <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
> * Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 4:46 AM
> * To:* *gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org* <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> * Cc:* *gnso-secs at icann.org* <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> * Subject:* [Gnso-igo-ingo] Follow-up to the second WG call of 20 July
> 2017 - Reconvened IGO-INGO Working Group on Red Cross and Red Crescent
> Names and Identifiers
>
> Dear Thomas, dear James,
> Dear Members of the reconvened Working Group,
>
> (1) Further to the discussions held during the second meeting of the
> reconvened Working group IGO/INGO Protections PDP Working Group held on 20
> July, please find attached a copy of the Non-paper we had submitted to
> ICANN’s Board and to the process in 2013.
> The attached includes a descriptive of the legal protections of the Red
> Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal designations and of the
> names/identifiers of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
> organizations under international law and under the domestic laws in force
> in multiple national jurisdictions.
>
> It includes as an annex an outline of relevant extracts from the first
> Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the third Additional Protocol adopted in
> 2005, and a list of national laws in force in different national
> jurisdictions on the use and protection of the emblems and their
> designations  (the list would require now to be updated to include more
> recent national laws/Governmental decrees, as adopted *inter alia* in
> South Sudan, Sweden and Venezuela).
>
> (2) We take note, as underlined during the recent reconvened Working group
> discussions, of the WG’s defined objectives to determine whether the
> current protections accorded to the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations
> and identifiers (as included under Specification 5 of the Model Registry
> Agreement) should be confirmed as permanent.
>
> In line with the recommendations of the NGPC/the Board's Resolutions that
> the GNSO’s 2013 Recommendations be reconciled with the GAC’s consistent
> advice, this would imply that the GNSO’s 2013 recommendations be revised on
> two counts:
>
> - firstly, to extend the protections accorded to the Red Cross, Red
> Crescent and Red Crystal designations (Scope 1 identifiers) to the full
> exact match names of the respective Red Cross and Red Crescent
> organizations (Scope 2 identifiers); and
> - second, to confirm the protections of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
> designations and identifiers (Scope 1 and Scope 2) *as permanent*.
>
> (3) As recalled during the last reconvened Working Group session and in
> line with the GNSO’s decision to initiate its process for Amendments or
> Modifications of Approved Policies *with regard to Recommendation 5
> Section 3.1 of the 2013 Final Report*, the extension of the protections
> should importantly be made to cover not only the names of the respective *National
> Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies* (190 in total to date), but also
> the full exact match names of the two international components of the
> International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in the six UN languages.
> This is congruent with the definition of Scope 2 identifiers as included in
> the Final Report of the 2013 PDP – page 10.
> This is also confirmed under the Board’s Resolution (2017.03.16.13) and
> the latter's Operative paragraph (1).
>
> Reference is also made in this regard to the GAC’s consistent advice [as
> expressly stipulated in the GAC Communiqués adopted in Singapore (27 March
> 2014), Los Angeles (15 October 2014), Singapore (11 February 2015), and
> confirmed in subsequent advice] that the Red Cross and Red Crescent
> identifiers be afforded permanent protections. We wish to underline in this
> regard that the names of the International Committee of the Red Cross, of
> the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and
> of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement are included under
> Specification 5 to the Model Registry Agreement and already enjoy temporary
> protections.
>
> (4) With respect to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms (also included under the
> definition of Scope 2 names adopted by the GNSO in 2013), the extension of
> the *permanent* protections is not requested here, and thus in line with
> the GAC’s past advice, as adopted in Durban (18 July 2013), that *“[t]he
> same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out […] for the
> protections of IGO’s be used to also protect the acronyms of the
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC/IFRC) and the International
> Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR)”*. Given
> however the importance of also protecting the acronyms of the ICRC and of
> the IFRC (particularly the ICRC acronym under which the ICRC is very
> commonly known and identified and which forms a part of the ICRC’s
> institutional logo), we would propose that the reconvened WG consider to
> issue also a recommendation in regard to the ICRC and IFRC acronyms in line
> with the GAC’s above-mentioned Durban Communiqué.
>
> (5) Lastly and further to recent exchanges with ICANN Staff, we wish to
> inform the members of the reconvened Working Group that, in line with the
> agreement during the Facilitated discussion held in Copenhagen, we are
> amenable to work further on a revised list of Red Cross and Red Crescent
> identifiers to replace the current list included under Specification 5 –
> this would notably aim to amend the current titles of the two categories of
> Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and identifiers (as these do not
> offer clarity) and to further harmonize the list of National Red Cross and
> Red Crescent Societies identifiers (and their *limited* and well defined
> variations).
>
> We also wish members of the WG to note, as indicated during the Copenhagen
> discussion, that a new National Society is in the process of formation and
> recognition, namely the “Marshall Islands Red Cross Society” and that its
> name will also soon require to be added to the list.
>
> Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further
> clarification.
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Charlotte
>
>
> Charlotte Lindsey Curtet
> Director
> Communication and Information Management Department
> International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)
> Tel: + 41 22 730 2773 <+41%2022%20730%2027%2073>
> email: *clindsey at icrc.org* <clindsey at icrc.org>
>
> Annexes:
>
> - ICRC and IFRC Position paper to ICANN's Board, July/August 2013:
>
>
>
> - Extracts from the Government Advisory Committee's Communiqués relevant
> to the protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent designations and
> identifiers:
>
> ===============================================================================
> 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.
> ===============================================================================
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
> *Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org* <Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> *https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo*
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict
> and other situations of violence. Find out more: 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.
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/attachments/20170808/e4e1ced8/attachment-0001.html>