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

[Mason Cole <mcole@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent point.

On May 29, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> 
> One thing that struck me as I read the report – our Charter and the full name 
> of our WG refers to providing policy advice on protections in “All gTLDs.”  
> However, I think our focus has been almost exclusively on the context of the 
> new gTLDs. 
>  
> This doesn’t pose a problem at the top level, since any future gTLD is going 
> to be a new gTLD.  However, as regards the second level, I think we need to 
> explicitly consider how our proposals work at the second level in existing 
> gTLDs (which do not have the TMCH, Sunrises, 90-day claims notices and the 
> URS, off the top of my head, and may have other differences – including the 
> issue of retroactivity (not necessarily saying that any proposal be 
> retroactive, just that it is an issue to address)).
>  
> Greg
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Peck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:01 PM
> To: 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 
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>