RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

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

Thanks Thomas for all the time you spent on this.  I think you did an excellent 
job.

It is unfortunate that we did not get responses from the registrars, the BC and 
the ISCPC because all of them will have votes when the Council considers the 
recommendations in the final report, but we can only work with what we have.

My personal comments for each of the tables are provided below.  Note there is 
only one that I think deserves further discussion, which can occur on list 
and/or in our call next week.

Chuck

RCRC
In my opinion your assessments were consistently applied to the responses in 
the consensus call and to the work of the group.

IOC

*         If we just look at the responses to the consensus call, an assessment 
of 'consensus' on 1 & 2 would not be accurate; on those results only, I think 
the best we could say is 'strong support w/ significant opposition'.  But I 
think you are correct on these two when we factor our work of the last several 
months.

*         Your support assessments for 3 &4 seem accurate to me based on both 
the consensus call responses and the work of the group.

IGOs

*         Your support assessment for 1, 3, 4 & 6 seem consistent with the way 
you assessed the RCRC.

*         Calling 2 'consensus' is not quite as clear from the consensus call 
results because of the ALAC support but I agree with it when we consider the WG 
work.  If the only think bothering the ALAC is the exception procedure, it 
would have been good to know that sooner because that might have been easy to 
fix; maybe we still could.  I think though that your assessment is right when 
we factor in the WG work.

*         Your support assessment for 5 seems correct to me.

INGOs

*         Your support assessment for 1 seems accurate because of the 
divergence of the IPC support; that along with the opposition by the NCSG and 
the 'we can live with it' from the ALAC moves it away from consensus in my 
opinion.  And I think the WG work confirms that.

*         Your support assessment for 2 seems consistent with the RCRC support 
assessments.

*         I think it is quite clear that there is divergence for 3 & 6 in the 
consensus call results and in our WG efforts.

*         The only difference in the consensus call results for 2 & 4 is the 
ALAC support for 2 and 'can live with' for 4 .  The WG efforts were not clear 
enough in my view to go one way or the other so I am okay with respecting your 
call on this.

*         Your support assessments for 5 & 7 seem to be obvious from the 
consensus call results and I don't think the WG efforts change them in any way.

General Recommendations for All Organizations

*         Your support assessments for 1 (The WG recommends that the respective 
policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by 
those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified 
designations.), 2 (Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Acronym identifiers 
are placed in Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, of the Applicant 
Guidebook, Strings "Ineligible for Delegation" (see option #4 for a variation 
of this)), 4 (Second-Level protections of Exact Match, Acronym identifiers are 
placed in Specification 5 of Registry Agreement), 6 (Fee waivers or reduced 
pricing (or limited subsidies) for registering into the Trademark Clearinghouse 
the identifiers of IGO-INGO organizations), 7 (IGO-INGOs allowed to participate 
in permanent Claims Notification of each gTLD launch) & 8 (Fee waivers or 
reduced pricing for IGO-INGOs filing a URS or UDRP action) seem like no 
brainers to me; divergence is the right call in my view for all of these as you 
decided.

*         I have trouble seeing how 3 (IGO-INGO organizations be granted a fee 
waiver (or funding) for objections filed to applied-for gTLDs at the 
Top-Level)warrants "strong support with significant opposition"; it seems like 
'divergence' to me.  I look forward to hearing your rationale.

*         5 (IGO-INGOs allowed to participate in Sunrise phase of each new gTLD 
launch) seems like a hard call between 'strong support with significant 
opposition' and 'divergence' so I will simply respect your judgment.





From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 3:55 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus Level

All,
as discussed during the last WG call, please find attached the assessment of 
the consensus level I made as chair of this WG.

Please do take the time and verify whether you agree with the determination I 
made. That means that I would like to ask you whether you share my view of the 
consensus level inside the group for the individual recommendations. The task 
is not to say whether you like the outcome of the consensus call or not, but to 
let the group know if you disagree with the level of consensus I have spelled 
out in the attached document. Thus, it may well be that you take a different 
position and do not like that a certain position has reached consensus or 
another recommendation is tagged "divergence", but you can still confirm 
whether you agree with my assessment or not. For the sake of making things 
easier, you do not have to send your agreement to the list, but it is important 
that you speak out if you think I made a mistake. What I would least like to 
see is that we get an issue or even formal steps taken against the 
determination of the consensus level. I am more than happy to discuss each and 
every individual point, both on the list as well as with you individually, 
should you wish so.

How did I get to the results you find in the document?

To avoid duplication, I would like to refer you to the transcript of the this 
week's call where we went through the respective rules of the WG Guidelines. In 
brief:

Determining the consensus level is an iterative process. Hence, I have not only 
taken the outcome of the consensus call, the deadline of which ended earlier 
this week.
I have looked at records of our deliberations and inputs that were provided by 
various groups. In particular, I have taken a look at the positions that were 
taken by those that did not respond to the consensus call as their opinion 
should not get lost in the process.

As a consequence, the attached document shows some changes compared to earlier 
versions of the paper.

Please allow me to make a personal remark: As a group, we have developed all 
the remarkable recommendations you find in the document and now I find myself 
as an individual determining the consensus level. That is quite odd. So please 
help me to get this right to do the work of the group justice.

Thanks and have a great weekend,
Thomas