NATO'S COMMENTS on IGO-INGO Identifier Protection Submissions

[Hill Patrick <hill.patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Classification: NATO UNCLASSIFIED

NATO'S COMMENTS on IGO-INGO Identifier Protection Submissions

I write to express NATO's full agreement with the positions advanced by the 
OECD and the UN.

Without repeating each of the points advanced by these and other IGOs, NATO 
recalls that the foundational documents of ICANN require it to discharge its 
role in conformity with international law and international conventions, to 
cooperate with relevant IGOs, and to take into account the recommendations made 
by national governments and other public authorities.

More specifically, Section 2 of the  Bylaws ICANN sets out its "core values", 
including

3. ... recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect 
the interests of affected parties;

4.   Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the 
functional, geographic and cultural diversity of the internet at all levels of 
policy development and decision-making;

7.  Employing open and transparent policy making mechanisms that (i) promote 
well-informed decisions based on expert advice and (ii) ensure that those 
entities most affected can assist in the policy development process.

11.  While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments 
and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into 
account governments' or public authorities recommendations.

In NATO's view, these principles are vital given the role of ICANN in 
regulating what is fundamentally a global public asset for the global public 
good.  While some aspects of the activities of the ICANN can quite properly be 
managed on commercial lines, such an approach is inappropriate when it comes to 
addressing concerns such as those that have been raised by IGOs.

NATO fails to see how the present GNSO proposal accords with these foundational 
principles.  Rather, the proposal ignores the public character and mission of 
the IGOs; their status as creatures of international law and convention; their 
multinational and hence multilingual character; and their non-commercial roles 
and responsibilities.   NATO subscribes fully to the more detailed exposition 
of these points made separately by the UN and OECD.

NATO does wish to underscore that it considers frankly incomprehensible the 
refusal of the GNSO to offer protection for acronyms in addition to the full 
names of IGOs.  One need simply cast an eye over this communication to 
appreciate that acronyms are an essential part of the public presence of IGOs 
and other entities, including the United Nations Organization (UN), the 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and, not least, 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) itself.

More broadly, we deeply regret that the GNSO proposal does not reflect the 
reasoned, balanced and good faith proposals advanced by the IGOs in response to 
concerns raised with them.

Along with the many other IGOs that have engaged on this issue, NATO 
respectfully urges the Board to carefully consider the points and positions 
advanced by the IGOs, and to find a solution that respects and advances its 
core principles.

Yours truly,

Peter Olson
Legal Adviser
North Atlantic Treaty Organization