RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report

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

Agree.
Claudia

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: 2013-11-05 16:19
To: Avri Doria; GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report


Good points Avri.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 10:07 AM
To: GNSO IGO INGO
Subject: 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.