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

[Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

I could support the below, but I recognize that one line of text is very easy 
to miss in a document this size.  Especially since, as Thomas rightfully 
stated, the majority of people will flip directly to the table, and may not 
read any disclaimer that precedes it.

I think it's easy to break it out in the cells.  For example, Recommendation 1 
can read:

            2nd-Level protections of only Exact Match, Full Name identifiers of 
the below organizations are placed in Specification 5 of Registry Agreement:

(a)   IOC and RedCross

(b)   IGOs

(c)    INGOs


Community members that support this Recommendation can say, for example, that 
they support 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).

Thanks,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil
Internet Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
202.777.0897 (t)
619.972.7810 (m)
www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com>



From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:13 AM
To: Jim Bikoff; mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

Support the below.
Best,
Claudia

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
Sent: 2013-06-05 23:10
To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

Dear all,

We agree with Chuck that, with regard to publication for public comment, the 
group should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Having said that, we would like to reiterate our recent comments,  which were 
submitted too late for inclusion in version 8.7 of the report.  We have 
included them in the attached document.

With respect the tables of protection options, perhaps the problem of 
distinguishing between the IGOs and INGOs can be solved with a simple 
explanation clarifying that the optional protection is offered for IGOs and /or 
INGOs.  The two categories of organizations may be considered separately from 
one another, and need not be considered together.  For example:

Please Note: In the column labeled "Top-Level Recommendation Options" below, 
IGO and INGO identifiers are listed together for the sake of simplicity.  With 
respect to each option, IGO and INGO protections may be considered separately 
from one another.
We also note that the text in the comment column of row 1 in each table 
requires clarification.  The current text may simply be an artifact of having 
merged several versions of the document, but the final version should not 
indicate that the options in row 1 of each table are inconsistent with the GAC 
advice and ICANN Board actions, at least with respect to the IOC.
Thanks,
Jim
James L. Bikoff
Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Suite 120
Washington, DC 20007
Tel: 202-944-3303
Fax: 202-944-3306
jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbikoff@xxxxxxxxx>