RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO

["Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Thomas and colleagues,

I'm concerned that (1) none of the protections listed in the Excel spreadsheet 
contemplate INGOs (other than the IOC/RCRC) and (2) not all the  so-called 
"weaker" protections/ support are included.  At the top-level, for example, we 
have requested (what we hope is very reasonable) technical and financial 
support for ICANN to file objections (but I don't see that in the matrix.)

Also, there is a problem where the protections listed here already  identify 
certain IOs.  Consensus on a protection mechanism here might imply most agree 
that the criteria resulting in the list of IOs is satisfactory (or that all 
these IOs should be protected at all).  I'm not sure that's accurate.  And 
especially since we haven't finished the work of defining WHO should be 
protected.

I am also concerned that some may understand your proposal to mean that if they 
don't  wholeheartedly accept the ISO-IEC proposal by Wednesday there will be no 
INGO protection recommended at all.

Best,
Claudia

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: 2013-05-11 04:58
To: 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