RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] How IGO-INGO Recommendations Could Impact Incumbent Registries

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

Well done Berry.

This is a minor point but I do have a question about this: "Where policy 
changes to recover protected identifiers of registered second-level names 
within an existing gTLD deviate from current policy, indemnification 
implication should be considered."  Why is the word 'implication' there?  I 
think it should say that "implication should be considered".
Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 2:09 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] How IGO-INGO Recommendations Could Impact Incumbent 
Registries

Hi All,

Please find attached an outline of our discussion on how possible identifier 
protection recommendations can be applied to existing gTLDs.  I attempted to 
consolidate the WGs comments from the MP3 into a first attempt at more 
formalized statements for the final report.  This is only a first draft, so I 
welcome your suggested changes.  Please update the Word document or respond via 
the list.

Thank you. B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb