Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO
Attached is the response of the Registry Stakeholder Group David W. Maher Senior Vice President – Law & Policy Public Interest Registry 312 375 4849 From: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:58 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Hi everyone, Please see the note from our Chair about what we hope to accomplish for next week. Also when completing the attached form, we ask if could state whether the response submitted is in your personal view or the view of the group you most represent. I will consolidate responses into one source as you send them next week. Thank you. B Thomas’ note: All, As discussed during last week’s call, we need to determine soon whether we proceed working on recommendations prior to publishing the report or whether we should publish the report in order to be able to incorporate community feedback into our thinking prior to a consensus call. The required minimum comment period is 42 days from posting with 21 of those days being the reply period. In the attached overview, you find my current assessment of where we are in terms of consensus or the absence thereof. Please note that we have phrased the recommendations in a way that appeared to find most support. In our discussions, we have also talked about higher protection levels, but the support level for these was lower. What you should do: 1. Please go through the spreadsheet and check whether you agree with the assessment of the current consensus level. If you think my assessment is wrong, please let me know. Also, if you think my assessment needs updating because you have changed the view you have previously represented, please also let me know. 2. If you think you cannot or do not wish to support the recommendations in the spreadsheet, but modifications thereof, please let us know and make a concrete proposal for a wording. In order to avoid repetition: Please DO NOT repeat positions you have already taken and which did not get traction with the group. To give you an example: If you think you cannot support the Trademark Claims Service as stated, but you would be able to support it if it was offered for more than 90 days, you should say exactly what change you need to support it. 3. As far as INGOs are concerned, the current assessment is "divergence". I have noted that the proposal made by Claudia was welcomed by some in the group. However, I have not heard anyone else saying that they would support the recommendation on an "as is" basis. Therefore, please DO confirm if you support the recommendations or let us know what changes would need to be made so you can support them. Also, if you have a different proposal, please share it. Should we not get such feedback on the list, my assessment would not change. You do not have to answer all questions; we would - however - take your silence as a signal of no opposition. As time is of essence, we need your feedback by the end of next Tuesday. Depending on the feedback we get, we will either confirm or cancel next Wednesday's call. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Berry Cobb Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) 720.839.5735 mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> @berrycobb Attachment:
IGO-INGO Protetion Matrix dwm ver 2.xlsx
|