[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Revised Draft Initial Report for Final Review

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

Greg’s edits look pretty good to me.  I agree that we should discuss the 
following comments from him:  11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 29?, & 34.  29 seems more 
like a comment so we may not need to discuss it unless others think a change is 
needed.

Chuck

From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:32 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Brian Peck; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Erika Randall
Subject: RE: Revised Draft Initial Report for Final Review

All:

With apologies for missing the deadline, I’ve been through the document and 
have several comments in the attached that I believe should be discussed on 
tomorrow’s call.  In addition, I’ve made a number of minor edits and 
proofreading corrections.  I’ve marked all of them with a comment that should 
have my initials in it.  (Sorry that my changes come in two colors; for some 
reason my name was “_” when I started this, and when I switched to “Greg 
Shatan,” it thought I was a new editor.).  For better or worse, I made my 
changes on top of the document that Chuck circulated.

I look forward to speaking with you all tomorrow.

Greg


Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.reedsmith.com<http://www.reedsmith.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 Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:32 PM
To: Brian Peck; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Erika Randall
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Revised Draft Initial Report for Final Review

Thanks Brian.

Rather than further complicate the redline document, I made three proposed 
edits that I think are minor to the clean document; see my comments as follows: 
CG1, CG3 & CG4.

The document is looking very good to me.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Peck
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 8:40 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Erika Randall
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Revised Draft Initial Report for Final Review

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




* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may 
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice 
of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete 
this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any 
purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your 
cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, 
unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in 
this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to 
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under 
the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters 
addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00