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

[<Sam.PALTRIDGE@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Berry,
The emails of September 11 and 17, 2013 submitted by the IGO coalition were not 
originally intended as a "minority statement" however if our viewpoints, 
including the structure of the recommendations matrix and the wording of the 
General Recommendation #4, are not heeded, we would like these statements to be 
included in the Final Report, as a minority statement or otherwise.
Best regards,
Sam

From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 17 September, 2013 11:12 PM
To: PALTRIDGE Sam, STI/ICCP; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; ricardo.GUILHERME@xxxxxxx; 
joanne.teng@xxxxxxxx; berly.lelievre-acosta@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: IGO Comment on consensus call

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
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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