RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Compiled Responses for Protections Matrix

["Shatan, Gregory S." <GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All:

I’ve clarified the responses received to date within the IPC, and I’d like to 
correct what I reported below.  Support for full name IGO protection at the top 
level appears consistently strong among responses received so far, and not 
divergent.  Support for acronym IGO protection at the top level is weak (so far 
at least) and would not appear likely to garner IPC support.  Ergo, the 
emerging IPC position appears to be consistent with the emerging WG position at 
the top level.  So, I would change my [still preliminary] chart (back) to 
“Support” in the first row.

Greg

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:53 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Compiled Responses for Protections Matrix

Mike:

Actually, you are incorrect, at least in part.  As I read the responses, one of 
the members you name in fact expressed disagreement with WG consensus position 
on IGO names at the top level, expressing concern with giving a pre-emptive 
“block” to any IGOs, at least without empirical support (evidence of abuse).  A 
second member then agreed with that first member.  So I would score it 5-2 on 
support for IGO full name protection at the top level and 6-1 against IGO 
acronym protection (but with one of those 6 expressing sympathy for IGO acronym 
protection where the organization is primarily known by its acronym, e.g., 
UNESCO or UNICEF).  I would say at this point, there is divergence on the first 
point (but which may be resolved in favor of consensus), but my view (in favor 
of full name protection) is in the majority and NOT divergent.  On the second 
point (support for acronym protection), it probably is fair to say that I am an 
outlier (putting aside the “sympathy” expressed by another member) and that the 
sense of the group does not favor protection for acronyms.  On that point, I 
should have been more specific and I stand corrected.  My chart originally said 
“Support” for the top level protections, and I changed it to “Divergent” after 
receiving the two responses noted above.  I thought it was important to note 
the potential change in support for the full name removal from delegation, 
since I have been supportive of it on these calls.

I’ve refrained from naming names above because I think this sort of thing is 
better resolved on the IPC Discussion Group than here.  I am going to move this 
discussion back to the IPC Discussion Group.

Best regards,

Greg


Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>



From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:04 PM
To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Berry Cobb'; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Compiled Responses for Protections Matrix

Greg, you should be more specific.  You put out a call for consensus in the IPC 
yesterday.  You have received six responses, including from the other two IPC 
members of the working group (David Tayer and Jim Bikoff), from a GNSO 
Councilor of IPC (Petter Rindforth), from the IPC Chair (Kristina Rosette), 
from me and from Brian Beckham at Valideus.  ALL SIX responses agreed with the 
WG Consensus position on IGO names at the top-level.

Only your views are “divergent”.  You should not be characterizing the IPC 
views as divergent on this point.

The WG should take a consensus call to tell the community in the Initial Report 
where there are areas of broad consensus, such as re IGO names at the top level.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shatan, Gregory S.
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:29 AM
To: 'Berry Cobb'; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Compiled Responses for Protections Matrix

I have attached a spreadsheet which conveys the views of a number of members of 
the IPC (in addition to my own), but which cannot be called a formal statement 
of the IPC.

Greg

Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.com>



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:17 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Compiled Responses for Protections Matrix

Hi All,

This is a PDF of the responses compiled thus far for the spreadsheets outlining 
the protections recommendations.

Thank you.  B

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





* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00