Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session

[Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All, 
are there any further comments? 

Thomas

=============
thomas-rickert.tel
+49.228.74.898.0

Am 02.07.2013 um 08:49 schrieb "Claudia  MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>:

> Hi Chuck, and all,
>  
> Yes, I think it would.
> Best,
> Claudia
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: 2013-07-01 16:02
> To: Avri Doria; GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session
>  
> I think I am okay with the intent of Claudia’s suggestion but I believe that 
> it would be helpful to differentiate Proposition C from Proposition B, which 
> is what I was trying to do in my suggested edit.  Would the following work:  
> “Proposition C: Protections should be provided to identifiers of INGOs other 
> than the RCRC & IOC.”
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 7:39 AM
> To: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session
>  
> +1
> 
> On 1 Jul 2013, at 04:04, Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
>  
> This proposed heading is problematic:
>  
> Proposition A: Protections should be provided to identifiers of qualifying 
> IGOs.
> Proposition B: Protections should be provided to identifiers of the RCRC & 
> IOC.
> Proposition C: Protections should be provided to identifiers of other INGOs 
> that are not covered by international treaty & national law protections like 
> the RCRC & IOC
> Proposition D: Protections should not be provided to any IGOs or INGOs
>  
> We have had serious discussion about the applicability of these two 
> categories of legal protection to INGOs, including the IOC.  This heading 
> gives the impression that the IOC/RCRC have identical protections (which is 
> not the case), that these are identical to IGOs (since they are not off-set 
> in Prop A, and which is also not the case), and that INGOs cannot rely on 
> legal protections in similar categories (we’ve had several discussions about 
> this).
>  
> May I suggest to correct this by simply adding the word “other” and delete 
> the text in yellow?
>  
> Sincerely,
> Claudia
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: 2013-06-27 21:04
> To: Brian Peck; GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session
>  
> Thanks Brian.  I inserted some proposed edits and comments in the attached 
> file.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Brian Peck
> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:27 PM
> To: GNSO IGO INGO
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session
>  
> Dear WG Members,
>  
> Please find attached an updated version of the proposed format for the 
> IGO/INGO public session in Durban which hopefully reflects the WG's 
> discussions earlier today.  Please advise if you have any comments or 
> questions – in the meantime, we will also submit this document to Xplane, the 
> professional facilitator, to see if they have any suggestions.  Thanks.  
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Brian 
>  
> Brian Peck
> Policy Director ICANN