RE: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013)

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

Let me first complement those who drafted this motion.  It is one of the 
cleanest I have ever seen albeit one of the longest.  I am not criticizing the 
length because I personally think that the Whereas clauses provide important 
historical context.

Here are some specific comments on the motion:

1.       It seems to me that Whereas clauses 5 & 15 duplicate but the dates 
given are different.  If I remember correctly, I think the December date is the 
correct one.  If so, I think we could replace Whereas clause 5 with Whereas 
clause 15 and delete Whereas clause 15.  Another approach would be to delete 
Whereas clause 5.  I lean toward the former because it goes with the conclusion 
of the DT work that is included in clause 3; if that is done, the new Whereas 
clause 5 should be moved to immediately follow Whereas clause 3 to maintain the 
chronological order.  (I hope this isn't too confusing!)

2.       Whereas clause 18 refers to the WG as 'RCRC-IOC-IGO-INGO Working 
Group'; I am okay with this but wonder if we should use the more commonly used 
title "IGO-INGO PDP WG".  In the same clause we should change 'Initial Report' 
to 'Draft Final Report'.  If we do this here, we should also do it in current 
Resolve clause 7.

3.       In Whereas clause 19 we say "the Working Group published its Final 
Report".  Are we going to publish it?  If so, where?  I know we are sending the 
report to the Council so I definitely think we should say that.  If we are 
going to publish it, I suggest we say "the Working Group published its Final 
Report at (insert link) and sent it to the GNSO Council, . . ."  If not, we 
could simply say we sent it to the Council.  I strongly believe it needs to be 
published so I think the former is the way to go.

4.       Because of the length of the motion and the likelihood that readers 
(including Councilors) may miss some of the different nuances, I suggest that 
we put terms like the following in bold font: top-level, second-level, full 
name, Scope 1, Scope 2, exact matches, acronym.

5.       A minor edit is needed in Resolve clause 2.A, second bullet:  change 
'a RCRC organizations' to 'a RCRC organization' or 'RCRC organizations'.

6.       In cases where we have "(as found in Specification 5 of the current 
New gTLD Registry Agreement)", I think we should instead have "in Specification 
5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement."  The way it is worded now could be taken 
to mean that the reserved names should be the same as those listed in the 
current registry agreement, which is not what we mean.  We also should say that 
this new list should replace what is in the current agreement. For example, at 
the end of the second bullet for the RCRC of Resolve clause 2.A, it should say 
"For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation 
shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the current 
New gTLD Registry Agreement, replacing in current text related to these names."

7.       I think we should add a new Resolve clause between what is now clauses 
2 and 3 that follows the same pattern as in clause 2 for recommendations that 
received 'strong support with significant opposition'.  It is possible for the 
Council to decide to submit those recommendation as consensus policy 
recommendations and, if they do, there would not need to be significant editing 
to the motion before a vote occurs.  On the other hand, if they do not decide 
to include those recommendations, it would be very easy to simply delete that 
resolve clause or some portion(s) of it.

8.       In what is now Resolve clause 3, I suggest that we change it as 
follows: "The GNSO Council adopts the following Consensus recommendations made 
by the Working Group that apply to all four categories of identifiers and 
recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board".  This is not essential but I 
think it would add some clarity in terms of why these recommendations are 
separated from the earlier ones.  Also, I think a minor edit is needed in the 
first bullet: change "String Ineligible for Delegation" to "Strings Ineligible 
for Delegation".

9.       In the last bullet under current Resolve clause 4, I think it would be 
a good idea to clarify what the exception procedure is for.  For example: "To 
the extent that Scope 1 identifiers for INGOs are withheld from registration at 
the second level, meaning that in the current round they are placed in 
Specification 5 of the new gTLD Registry Agreement, existing Registry 
Agreements shall include an exception procedure [insert purpose, i.e., that 
allows applicable INGOs or other organizations to register the strings 
providing steps are taken to minimize confusion] (Section 3.4.3 of the Working 
Group's Final Report)."

10.   The first sentence of Resolve clause 7 is very complicated. I took a stab 
at improving it:  "The GNSO Council shall convene a RCRC-IOC-IGO-INGO 
Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN staff in developing the 
implementation details relating to the recommendations adopted herein if they 
are approved by the ICANN Board, including the Principles of Implementation 
highlighted by the WG in Section 3.7 of its Final Report. . . . "

I hope these make sense.  Please let me know if they do not.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:46 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO 
Meeting 06 NOV 2013)
Importance: High

Dear WG members:

As a result of further internal review of the latest version of the draft 
report and consultation with other ICANN departments, we have made a few 
revisions to the draft motion that was sent around yesterday. Please refer to 
the attached revised draft motion for today's call - it will also be uploaded 
into the Adobe Connect room. I am sorry for the lateness, but as you know 
everyone is working to get documents, motions and other materials ready in time 
for Buenos Aires!

In particular, please note that we have further refined the language relating 
to INGO recommendations, and proposed language for the incumbent/existing 
Registries.

We look forward to discussing the motion and your feedback on today's call.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: Berry Cobb Mail <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 12:21 AM
To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013

WG Members,

Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday's meeting.  Attached are 
the latest versions of the draft Final Report, the CC Supplement, and the 
latest PCRT.  The Final Report version 1.5 includes all changes received to 
date.

Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO WG Meeting - 06 NOVEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI's
2.       Chair's update
3.       Review Public Comments RT (4 comments submitted)
4.       Review draft Final Report (v1.5) / CC Supplement
5.       Confirm next meeting, 07 November 2013 @ 14:00 UTC

Speak with you soon.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb