Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
Jo and Berly, thank you for your message and for expressing your concerns. Rest assured that these are well understood. You will remember that the WG has extensively deliberated this very issue and many WG members have stated that the term "divergence" does not adequately reflect the level of support - or I should more accurately say the lack thereof - for the recommendation on acronyms. You will also remember that this discussion emerged during the consensus call prior to the publication of the draft final report for public comment. At that point in time I have made the decision not to change the language for the consensus call because I thought it was not appropriate to apply changes where some had already responded to the original request. Thus, during the fact-finding and information gathering phase there was a level playing field for all requesting parties. Now that this phase is completed (certainly pending the analysis of the remaining public comments) the question is how public comment is reflected in the final report. The task is to adequately reflect the views of the community and against this background, the "consensus against" term is more accurate than the "divergence" term. Please do note that the use of this term has been cleared with ICANN General Counsel. The report includes language explaining the history of the discussion so that your views are reflected. I will review those sections to see whether we can be more explicit to address your concerns. Thanks and kind regards, Thomas Am 05.11.2013 um 10:22 schrieb "Teng, Joanne" <joanne.teng@xxxxxxxx>: > 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 Nov for 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
|