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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

I also support separation of RCRC and IOC.
NCSG has been in favor of that for a while now and really do not understand how 
there can be any reasons for not separating.  
They should both be able to stand on their sui generis reasons for special 
consideration.

thanks

avri


On 6 Jun 2013, at 13:25, Roache-Turner, David wrote:

> Agree with you Chuck (apples and oranges un-separated equal fruit salad).
>  
> Best,
> David
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: jeudi 6 juin 2013 19:05
> To: Kiran Malancharuvil; Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; Jim Bikoff; 
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG
>  
> I would just make one modification to Kiran’s suggestion: separate IOC and 
> Red Cross.  I say that not because I personally think they need to be 
> considered separately but because some in the WG have said they should be 
> separated.  We might also want to say ‘INGOs other than the IOC and Red Cross 
> for (c).
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Kiran Malancharuvil
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; Jim Bikoff; mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 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] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Bikoff
> Sent: 2013-06-05 23:10
> To: mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; 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 IGOsand 
> /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 
> notindicate 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message 
> may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If 
> you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the 
> sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all 
> e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.