[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Claudia for this input.  I have the following personal concerns about 
two of the suggested edits.


1)      First, note the changes in the first paragraph on page 14.  I don't 
think the second change in the first sentence accurately reflects the result of 
our discussions:  "WG deliberations around qualification criteria quickly 
confirmed that a single framework to cover all four types of organizations was 
not possiblepreferred by most."  I have no problem deleting 'quickly'; in fact 
I don't think it did happen quickly.  But I do not believe it is correct to say 
that "a single framework to cover all four types of organizations was not 
preferred by most."  I think that most of us would have preferred a single 
framework but came to the conclusion that it was not possible to develop one 
that most of us could support.  I suggest the wording along these lines:  "WG 
deliberations around qualification criteria quickly confirmed that that it was 
not possible to develop one that most of the group could support."  I think I 
can live with the changes made in the rest of this paragraph as long as the IOC 
& RCRC representatives confirm its accuracy from their understanding of the 
laws.


2)      I have the same concerns as above with regard to the changes suggested 
in this sentence on page 17: "It became evident from the WG deliberations that 
a single framework of qualification criteria could not be definedwas not 
preferred given the different nature of IGOs and INGOs."  I suggest wording 
something like the following: "It became evident from the WG deliberations that 
it was not possible to develop a single framework of qualification criteria 
that most of the group could support."

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:16 AM
To: Brian Peck; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Erika Randall; Marika Konings
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

Dear colleagues,

Please find our comments in the attached.  They are made in the following 
sections:

Section 4.1.2      Qualification Criteria (also on p. 17)
Section 4.1.3      Eligibility Process
Section 4.1.6      Main Findings of ICANN's General Council Office
Section 4.3          Proposed Recommendations Matrix - Top-Level
Section 4.4          Proposed Recommendations Matrix - Second-Level
Section 4.5          Proposed Recommendations Matrix - Qualification Criteria
Section 4.6          Proposed Recommendations Matrix - Exception Procedure
Section 5.4          Summary of International Organizations' Positions

And we would just like to express our great appreciation for all the work 
Brian, Berry and many other colleagues have and continue to put into these 
discussions and developments.

Best regards,
Claudia (ISO)

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]>
 On Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: 2013-05-22 20:01
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Erika Randall; Marika Konings
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

To the Working Group Members,

Please find attached the draft version of the IGO-INGO Initial Report for your 
review.

In line with the discussions led by Thomas on our last call, the primary 
objective of this Report is to highlight to the community the policy 
recommendation options which the WG has considered in order to solicit direct 
feedback and/or indications of support for specific options.  After receiving 
community input the plan would be to hold a consensus call for the proposed 
policy recommendations on special protections.

As a result, the focus of the Report is Section 4, with less emphasis on 
history, background, process/next steps. The Report notes to the community that 
the proposed recommendation options do not represent a consensus position and 
thus, we attempted to not include stakeholder positions on any of the possible 
recommendations or any consensus level indications as observed by the Chair or 
WG.  We have suggested some specific questions to the community to solicit 
feedback which are included in the Objectives Section.

We would greatly appreciate your review and submission of comments/edits you 
may have in a timely manner so that we can publish the Report for public 
comment by 30 May, which will give us enough time with the Reply Period to meet 
the submission deadline for Durban.  In making edits/comments to this Report, 
we would ask that any positions or comments on the proposed recommendations be 
made through the public comment period rather than through this Report.

 Input Deadline:  29 May 12:00 UTC
 Next Meeting:  29 May 2013, 16:00 UTC

 We will review the report and discuss proposed edits and changes at our next 
meeting on the 29th.  It is important to have your suggestions submitted by the 
deadline as to allow merging with the master copy of the report.

****NOTE****

When providing feedback, please save a copy of this MS Word document with a 
change of the file name to indicate who you are or represent.  Track changes 
are turned on.  Please submit all comments you have about the report within the 
Word document.  We would like to ensure we collate all feedback in one location.

Thank you in advance for your continued support and contributions to this WG.

Best Regards,

Brian

Brian Peck
Policy Director
ICANN