Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
Hi, I know I am not leadership but will offer some thoughts. One point I want to make is that when one reads Consensus Against, it means ICANN Consensus Against according to the definiton in the charter. And that means that those with a vested interested can be holdouts on the consensus but we could still have ICANN consensus if all the rest of the group: - had taken the effort to understand the IGO's position - considered what they had to say seriously - were still against. From my non leadership eye, that is what I think occurred. But of course you are right to challenge it if you do not think that is the case, I just want to make sure that you don't think that because you still disagree we therefore couldn't have consensus against. avri On 5 Nov 2013, at 01:22, Teng, Joanne wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We were dismayed to receive the below email message of November 4, 2013 > regarding Section 3.5 and the change made to indicate “Consensus Against” for > General Recommendations 1 and 2. > > Changing the level of support to “Consensus Against” at this very late stage > is highly inappropriate. It is also misleading, as it masks the clear > positions in favor of top-level and second-level protections for acronyms > expressed by the OECD, UPU and WIPO throughout this Working Group process. > With these three immediately concerned Working Group members indicating that > they are in favor of top-level and second-level protection of exact match > acronym identifiers, the level of support recorded for Recommendations 1 and > 2 in Section 3.5 cannot in good faith be characterized as “Consensus Against”. > > Far more than any other constituency represented in the Working Group, it is > IGOs themselves that are affected by any ICANN failure to grant the requisite > preventive protection to their names and acronyms. IGOs strongly oppose > mis-characterization of the level of support for General Recommendations 1 > and 2 as “Consensus Against”, particularly in light of the Working Group > leadership’s earlier statements of September 20, 2013 about the > inappropriateness of changing the terminology of the consensus scale. > > Each member of this Working Group is aware that there is no actual “Consensus > Against”. Given their stake, the three IGO Working Group members have an > entirely reasonable expectation that this lack of consensus be accurately > reflected in the Final Report as “Divergence” as was originally done by the > Chair. A failure to do so would diminish the credibility of the Final Report > on this issue (and indeed, the Working Group leadership itself has recently > argued that “a last minute change to the consensus levels might let the > process appear not having been reliable”), and the three IGOs will not fail > to point this out to the GNSO Council, the ICANN Board and other stakeholders. > > We look forward to hearing the Working Group leadership’s response. > > Best regards, > > WIPO, OECD, UPU > > Jo Teng and Berly Lelievre Acosta on behalf of the Working Group > representatives from WIPO, OECD and UPU > > > From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Berry Cobb > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 6:39 AM > To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report > > WG Members, > > Please find attached the latest version of the IGO-INGO Final Report. > Versions 1.1 to 1.3 reflect changes as a result of moving the recommendations > section to the top of the report. I accepted those changes to reduce the > amount of red-line. V1.4 contains the red-line of the substantial changes. > It will be best for readers to read the report in the Final view, but please > make sure to also review comments that are appended on the side of the report > as they contain questions or comments that the WG should consider. The > following sections should be reviewed closely: > · Recommendations now in sections 3.1 to 3.5 > · Section 3.5 now reflects “Consensus Against” for the no reservation > protections of acronyms recommendations at the top and second level > · Section 3.5 also includes a recommendation for the SCI of the GNSO > Council to review the Consensus Scale per WGG > · Unsupported proposals now reside in section 3.6, which also > contains tables of proposals for each organization that did not receive > support > · Implementation considerations on incumbent gTLDs is section 3.7 and > includes reference to an IRT > · Annex 4 contains a completed template for requesting an Issue > Report for a PDP > > Please review the report in preparation for our review on Wednesday. I will > accept suggested edits until 23:59, 5 Novfor this round. This will allow me > time to collate all changes into the master. When submitting any > suggestions, please use the red-line track changes feature within v1.4 of the > Word document. If you are unable to submit changes, we will have a second > round after our Wednesday meeting. > > Note that we do have 1 hour meetings setup 7 & 8 November at 14:00 UTC for > one hour should we need those times to discuss any issues with the Final > Report. We have until 23:59, 10 Nov 2013 to submit the report to the GNSO > Council. > > I will send along an agenda on Tuesday. Thank you. B > > Berry Cobb > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > 720.839.5735 > mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > @berrycobb > > > > World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message > may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If > you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the > sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all > e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. Attachment:
signature.asc
|