RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to our WG and our subject matter

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've been over the GAC Durban Communique a little more carefully, and note the 
following.

1.  There is an indirect mention of our WG in Section II.3 (regarding the 
GAC/GNSO meeting), as follows:

"The GAC met with the GNSO and exchanged views on key policy development work 
in the GNSO, including an ongoing Policy Development Process (PDP) regarding 
protection of IGO and INGO names and acronyms. An exchange focused on the 
opportunities for the GAC to engage early in GNSO Policy Development Processes."

2.  The section on INGOs asking for a notification-and-dispute-resolution type 
process (Section IV.5.c) only relates to acronyms at the second level.  Section 
IV.5.a makes a more general statement that: 

"The GAC reaffirms its previous advice from the Toronto and Beijing Meetings 
that IGOs are in an objectively different category to other rights holders thus 
warranting special protection by ICANN. IGOs perform important global public 
missions with public funds and as such, their identifiers (both their names and 
their acronyms) need preventative protection in an expanded DNS."

I take from this that the GAC advice on IGO names is unchanged (i.e., 
registration should be prevented).

3.  There is a section on the RCRC (confusingly also numbered as Section IV.5), 
entitled "Protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent Acronyms" which states:

"The same complementary cost neutral mechanisms to be worked out (as above in 
4.c.i.) for the protection of acronyms of IGOs be used to also protect the 
acronyms of the International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC/CICR) and the International Federation of Red Cross and 
Red Crescent Societies (IFRC/FICR)."

 I take this to mean that the GAC advice is that the acronyms of only those two 
organizations (and not the national RCRC organizations) should be subject to 
the same notification-and-dispute-resolution process as IGO acronyms.

5.  There is no mention of the IOC or any other INGO.

Greg



-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note references to 
our WG and our subject matter

I too have not read the Communique carefully, but there is to be a large 
section for IGOs that SEEMS to be asking only for notification if someone 
attempts to use one of the "protected" names implying a waiting period while 
the IGO has an opportunity to object. So the time seems to be uncertain, but it 
is clearly specified as "cost neutral" whatever that means.

They use very differnet words for RCRC/Olympics that seems to prevent 
registration.

So perhaps for IGO names and acronyms they have redefined the protection they 
are asking for.

Alan




At 21/07/2013 11:35 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

>Avri,
>
>You didn't see it because it's not there (apologies for the slightly 
>tongue-in-cheek heading).  Our WG did come up in the GAC/GNSO Session 
>on Sunday.  There's no transcript of that meeting (at least not yet).  
>My basic recollection of that meeting was that the GAC acknowledged 
>that we and the GAC are on "parallel tracks" and that the GAC would be 
>concerned if the GNSO's recommendations differed from the GAC Advice.  
>Brian Peck (presenting) was rather in the hot seat.  It would be great 
>if others who were present could amplify or correct my recollections of 
>that meeting.
>
>If anything, the Durban Communique attempts to paint the Board into a 
>corner by stating that "the ICANN Board, further to its previous 
>assurances, is prepared to fully implement GAC Advice" (on the IGO 
>point at least).
>
>There is potential for a complex and difficult situation and, in the 
>crush of events in Durban, it did not get much attention.  Should this 
>WG and/or the GNSO be involved in the GAC/NGPC discussions on this 
>matter even if there is no formal track for such interaction?  What if 
>we show up after the Board implements the GAC Advice and the GNSO then 
>issues conflicting Policy Recommendations?
>What if the Board votes it down?  What if we are not finished by the 
>time the first roll-outs are scheduled to occur?
>
>We should consider these, before there is a "policy clash"....
>
>Greg
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:04 AM
>To: GNSO IGO INGO
>Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] GAC Durban Communique Issued -- Note 
>references to our WG and our subject matter
>
>
>Hi,
>
>I guess I need to reread it, while I recall them discussing the 
>subject, I do not remember the GAC acknowledging the existence of the WG.
>
>But I read it quickly, so perhaps I missed that part where they ack our 
>group's work, indicate a willingness to work with us and give at least 
>some small indication of respecting the fact that we working hard (some 
>of you harder than the rest of us) on the problem, trying to find a 
>solution that is consistent with international law, Internet openness 
>and the ICANN bottom-up decision processes.
>
>Apologies for missing the WG meeting in Durban, ATRT2 filled my dance card.
>
>avri
>
>On 18 Jul 2013, at 11:51, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-18jul13-en.h
> > tm
> >
> > Gregory S. Shatan
> > Deputy Chair | Tech Transactions Group IP | Technology | Media 
> > ReedSmithLLP The business of relationships
> > 599 Lexington Avenue
> > New York, NY 10022
> > 212.549.0275 | Phone
> > 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> > 212.521.5450 | Fax
> > gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > www.reedsmith.com
> >
> >
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received 
> it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us 
> immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your 
> system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose 
> its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. 
> Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any
> attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be 
> used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal 
> Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
> promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related 
> matters addressed herein.
> >
> > Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> >
> >
> >
> >