[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: IGO Comment on consensus call

["Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Sam,

For clarity on the statement below, is this considered a Minority Statement
for the draft Final Report, or is that covered by the submission by the
Joint IGO Coalition?

 

Thank you.   B

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

 <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

@berrycobb

 

 

From: Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx [mailto:Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 08:22
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx; joanne.teng@xxxxxxxx;
berly.lelievre-acosta@xxxxxxxx
Subject: IGO Comment on consensus call

 

Dear Thomas, Dear WG Colleagues,

The IGOs participating in the Working Group have reviewed the Chair's
assessment of consensus and wish to make the following observations.

As a general matter, IGOs firmly believe that advice of ICANN's Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) on matters of public policy should be respected. As
subjects of international law together with States, we therefore object to
policy proposals that are at odds with such advice.  

On IGO protection specifically, the IGOs' fundamental position remains that
IGO names and acronyms must receive preventative protection in new gTLDs, at
both the top level in future rounds and the second level in all rounds. The
need for such protection has been unequivocally recognized by GAC as a
matter of global public policy. IGOs are extremely concerned that the
recommendations proposed by the Working Group to the GNSO Council are not
fully in line with such GAC advice, which has been accepted by the Board,
subject to clarification of certain implementation issues.

Moreover, the structure and content of the Working Group's recommendation
matrix as presently completed is such that the IGO position is not
discernible without specific reference to supporting documentation. (For
example, the "but Significant Opposition" stated under item #5 of the
IGO-related recommendations does not properly convey that such opposition
concerns the lack of preventative second-level protection implied by the
majority-proposed addition to the Trademark Clearinghouse.)

More than any other constituency represented in the Working Group, it is
IGOs themselves that are affected by any ICANN failure to grant the
requisite protection to their names and acronyms. With due respect for
divergences of opinion, the participating IGOs request the Chair to have the
final matrix reflect more adequately the fundamental IGO positions which
some Working Group colleagues decline to share. This request is also in line
with the Working Group Charter on methodologies applicable to the
recommendation matrix mandating that a lack of consensus must be declared in
the event of significant opposition (which is obviously the case here).

Thank you for this effort.

OECD, WIPO, UPU

 

Sam Paltridge on behalf of Working Group representatives from OECD, WIPO,
UPU