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

["Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT" <MACMASTER@xxxxxxx>]

Idem.
Claudia

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2013-07-05 00:39
To: Thomas Rickert; Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Cc: Avri Doria; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session

None from me.

Chuck

From: Thomas Rickert [mailto:rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 5:25 PM
To: Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Updated Proposed Format for Durban Public Session

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<mailto: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> 
[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> 
[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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[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> 
[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