[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: consensus

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

Dear all,

Have we had/ expect any updates to these recommencions?  Have the registrars 
sent their written view?

If not, I will suggest that we update the first recommendation under INGOs to 
read "consensus."

Sincerely,
Claudia (ISO)

________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck [cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 7:43 PM
To: Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT; Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx); 
gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: consensus

I agree with Claudia that the two are very close.  It might be argued that 
support for recommendation 1 is slightly stronger for the IOC than for INGOs 
but it probably isn’t a significant difference.

This is a case where I think support from the registrars for either one could 
sway the decision to ‘consensus’ and opposition by the ‘registrars could sway 
it to ‘sssop’.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Claudia MACMASTER TAMARIT
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:21 AM
To: Thomas Rickert (rickert@xxxxxxxxxxx); gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] consensus

Hi Thomas,

Thank you, again.

In light of yesterday’s call, we’ve compared reactions on Recommendation 1 
between the IOC and other INGOs.  It appears to us that both columns reflect 
consensus, and feel that it would be appropriate to reflect this.

We raise this now for transparency and consistency as it may have weight on any 
further comments.

Recommendation 1:

Top-Level protections of Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers … are 
placed in the Applicant Guidebook section 2.2.1.2.3, Strings "Ineligible for 
Delegation"

IOC - consensus

INGOs – sssop

PI: I support fully the draft recommendations in the document

PI: I support fully the draft recommendations in the document

IOC: Support

ISO,IEC: Support

RL: Do Not Support

RL: Do Not Support

RySG: Yes

RySG: Yes

NCSG remains against any blocking of strings in the AGB. Objection procedures  
should be used for this purpose.

NCSG remains against any blocking of strings in the AGB. Objection procedures 
should be used for this purpose.  Further we think that IGO and INGO should 
have the same level of protections in all cases and do not support protection 
for the IGO category if the INGO category is not also protected.

IPC: Support

IPC: Divergence of Views

ISPCP: Support

ISPCP:  Can live with.  We are against protection for INGOs, but if it is neede 
to reach some level of consensus we can accept it.

ALAC: No

ALAC: Can live with


Again thank you, and ICANN staff.

Respectfully,
Claudia (ISO)