Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Revised Draft Initial Report for Final Review
Brian, you reference "next Wednesday's call", but I don't see one on the GNSO Calendar and I have not received an e-mail about one. If there is one, can someone please specify the time and duration. Alan At 07/06/2013 08:39 PM, Brian Peck wrote: Dear WG Members,Please find attached an updated and revised version of the Initial Report for your review. Also attached for comparison purposes is a PDF version of the draft which incorporated the most recent comments. Our goal for next Wednesday's call after discussion about a few remaining issues is to obtain agreement from the WG to publish the Report for public comment next week.As you will see, we have incorporated most of the suggested edits and addressed the majority of comments hopefully in a manner that is agreeable to the WG. There are a few small sections that are highlighted and/or where comments have been maintained so that if still necessary after your review, we can discuss on Wednesday's call.With regard to the discussion on list related to whether the protection matrix should be separated out among the IGOs, IOC, RCRC and INGOs, in talking with Thomas as the Chair, he has pointed out that as the transcripts and mp3's in ICANN's archive will confirm, the WG made a decision months ago that the four types of organizations should be looked at individually. The reason for that was that the group could not agree on qualification criteria for all of them. The fact that we have not stringently kept that separation during our discussion was due to the fact that the Board / GAC has treated them together in terms of the legal basis for protections the Board has approved, and that he has made clear multiple times that the WG would not lump them together. In Thomas' view, it is therefore in line with the work previously conducted by this group that the four groups of organizations should be separated and that the community should get the opportunity to comment for each individual case and protection mechanism.At the same, time, we want the community to focus and provide feedback on the objective protection mechanism proposals and so, we have proposed a compromise solution by maintaining the matrix in its current form, but also providing an explanatory note on each page of the matrix:The Working Group has made a decision during the course of its deliberations that the four types of organizations listed in the scope of identifiers above should be looked at individually in terms of protection for their respective identifiers, due to the fact as noted above that the WG could not agree on a single set of objective qualification criteria for all of them. In the matrix of proposed policy recommendations below, IGO and INGO identifiers are listed together for the sake of simplicity. In the case where the RCRC and IOC are treated the same or listed together, this only reflects the view and actions of the GAC and ICANN Board to date, and does not reflect the approach of the WG. Therefore, with respect to each option, protections of IGO, INGO, IOC and RCRC identifiers may be considered separately from one another.This will hopefully inform the community of the approach the WG has taken with regard to these organizations while at the same time having them focus on the objective protection mechanism proposals rather than basing their feedback primarily on whether a particular organization should be provided a certain protection. We hope that the WG members will find this agreeable.If you have any comments or suggested edits please use this master draft and submit them back by 23:59 UTC Monday, 10 June. We appreciate your continued support and contributions and look forward to finalizing and publishing this Initial Report next week.Best Regards, Brian Brian Peck Policy Director ICANN
|