ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-igo-ingo]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] preparation of the next call

  • To: <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] preparation of the next call
  • From: "Berry Cobb" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:51:53 -0700

Team,

Per Thomas' note below, attached is v2.0 of the spreadsheet containing all
the latest entries.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
@berrycobb


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:31
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] preparation of the next call


All,
in preparation of the next call, I would like to remind you of the next
steps:

Ideally, the sub-teams will have discussed the contents of the respective
spreadsheets and achieved two results:

- Shortlisting

Please identify, if you can, arguments or proposals that can be deleted
because they do not help us in finding a solution. 

To give you an example: In my view, there was consensus or at least a vast
majority of the participants found that putting the designations in question
on the reserved names list would not be the way to go for various reasons.
As a consequence, the line in the spreadsheet dealing with the reserved
names list would not make it to the shortlist and could be marked deleted
(see Protections sheet, line 4). 

We would still write a few lines about points that have been eliminated
during the process of shortlisting, but by narrowing down the options, we
will be able to focus on the relevant points.

- Priorization 

Please try to prioritize the points that have made it to the shortlist. I am
not sure whether this is possible in all areas, but it would be helpful to
find out whether the sub-groups are able to identify points that are more
and those who are less relevant. 

An example might be that - at least this was my recollection of last week's
call - the organizations seeking protection felt that harm to the global
public interest (Nature of the Problem spreadsheet line 9)  was deemed a
most important point while the issue of cost of defensive registration (same
spreadsheet line 4) seemed to be discussed more controversially. 

Hopefully, we will be able to discuss the outcome of your discussions on
Wednesday. 

Please submit your feedback to Berry by the COB on Tuesday so he can
incorporate your work into a single document. As we plan to migrate from
spreadsheet to text format, your feedback is most welcome in text format.

Should we not hear from you, we will discuss some hand-picked questions
during the call to advance our discussions.

As indicated during the call, the plan is to write a report on the basis of
the feedback we have after the call and have that ready for the call next
week. 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thomas


Attachment: IGO-INGO-Working-Tool_v2.0.xlsx
Description: Microsoft Office



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy