Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC

[Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas and WG,

My input is attached.

Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW



>________________________________
> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> 
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 2:17 PM
>Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 
>23.59 UTC
> 
>
>All,
>thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the 
>attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These 
>are:
>
>1)      A separate general table with language was added for those 
>organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are 
>protected
>2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was 
>removed 
>6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>
>I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the 
>recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the 
>recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the 
>discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of 
>the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>
>As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed 
>by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, 
>G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time 
>to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>
>Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all 
>organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get 
>sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>
>I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and 
>provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one 
>answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can 
>indicate the position for each item individually. 
>
>It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not 
>reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options 
>that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>
>In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure 
>that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of 
>you wish to make such statements. 
>
>One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. 
>I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow 
>the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable 
>both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our 
>work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also 
>demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a 
>highly controversial and complex topic.
>
>Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>
>Thanks again,
>Thomas
>
>
>
>