RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Initial Report - Latest Draft Version

[<icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The latest draft does not reflect the consensus from the previous WG call as
to statement of options at the top level.  We agreed there should be 4
options:  protection for full names, protection for acronyms, no protection
for full names, no protection for acronyms.  This draft still lumps the 'no
protection' options together as one, when they ought not be.  Current Option
4 should be bifurcated please.

 

Thanks,

Mike

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

Tel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087

 <http://rodenbaugh.com> http://rodenbaugh.com

 

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Berry Cobb; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Initial Report - Latest Draft Version

 

Thanks Berry.  Because I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow and
because there would not be time to discuss all of my comments and suggested
edits, I created the attached version.  In all cases, I inserted a comment
if I made a change or wanted to make a point so that it should be easy to
find all of by changes (even minor edits) or comments by simply looking for
comments by CG.

 

I don't think I made any material edits except in a few cases where I
corrected statements that I thought were incorrect. There were a few places
where sentences didn't make sense to me so I tried to fix them; please check
those to make sure I edited them to say what was intended.  Also, I want to
call attention to my comment 63 where I quoted guidebook text showing that
there are limits to funding of government objections; I suggested one way to
cover this in the text but welcome alternative approaches.

 

Overall, I think the document is very close to being ready depending on how
the call goes tomorrow.  To facilitate the discussion on the call, I suggest
that the group look at the following comments from me:  CG30, CG31, CG32 &
CG35 on p.18; CG36 on p.19; CG63 on p.26; and CG95 on p.33.   Of course, I
welcome discussion of any other edits suggested by me or David Maher either
added in this version or previously.

 

In the posted version, a lot of the comments can be deleted, but as I stated
in an earlier message today, some them might be helpful to leave.  But I
will leave that decision to the group.

 

Have a good meeting.

 

Chuck

 

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:00 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO Initial Report - Latest Draft Version

 

WG Members,

 

Please find attached the latest version of the IGO-INGO Initial Report.  We
will use this version as the basis for our discussions tomorrow.  In this
version you will find changes discussed from last week's call, which also
include all comments that have been submitted by yesterday's deadline.
Primary changes include:

1)      Reconfigured recommendation options matrix

2)      GCO update to research

3)      Addition of content to enhance sub-team output

4)      Update to steps/milestones to get to final report

5)      Removal of Annex 1 - GNSO Resolution that was not referenced
specifically in the report

 

For the call on Wednesday, we will primarily focus on the rationale/comments
for each of proposed recommendation options starting in section 4.3 plus any
other areas of the report that members wish to have reviewed.  

 

Reminder, tomorrow's call will be one hour @ 15:00 UTC.

 

Regards,

B

 

Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

720.839.5735

mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

@berrycobb