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

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

I fully understand your point Kiran but there have been multiple WG members who 
supported separating the two organizations so I think that we need to respect 
that viewpoint and make it easy for commenters to differentiate between the two 
organizations if they so wish.  For those who believe that they should be 
treated the same, whether for reasons that you cite or others, it is easy 
enough to support the same protections for both.

Chuck

From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 2:09 PM
To: Roache-Turner, David; Gomes, Chuck; Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; Jim Bikoff; 
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

Disagree.

The reason I disagree with Chuck and David R-T here, is that, unlike IGOs and 
INGOs, the IOC and Red Cross are operating under the same set of criteria for 
protection, articulated by the GAC time and time again, supported by the Board, 
and approved by the GNSO (IOC/RCRC DT).

The IGO criteria is separate from that, and the INGO criteria is even more 
separate still.

I don't advocate a separation in order to cherry pick what organizations people 
"like" better than others (and in my experience, the only thing warranting the 
separation of IOC and Red Cross is that people  "like" the Red Cross more), but 
rather because the LEGAL BASIS FOR PROTECTION IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT.  That is 
not the case with IOC and Red Cross.

As a side note, we've been over the IOC/RCRC separation issue approximately ONE 
MILLION TIMES.  Revisiting it is painful and unnecessary.

In case I have to state the obvious, I used to represent the IOC, but I don't 
have anything to do with them now.

Thanks,

Kiran

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



From: Roache-Turner, David 
[mailto:david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:david.roacheturner@xxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 1:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Kiran Malancharuvil; Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; Jim Bikoff; 
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Draft Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG

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> 
[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<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:brian.peck@xxxxxxxxx>; 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<http://www.markmonitor.com>





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 Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:13 AM
To: Jim Bikoff; 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] 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>





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.