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

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

Thank you very much Mary.  I have some more feedback:


*         Because of what I deem as an extremely thorough job that the WG did 
in reviewing and analyzing public comments to the Draft Final Report, I want to 
suggest that we add one more Whereas clause that notes that effort and provides 
a link to the document showing our analysis and responses.  I think that what 
we did provides an excellent example for future WG efforts and that there is 
strong value in calling attention to it.

*         I note that my suggestion to put some key terms (top-level, 
second-level, full name, Scope 1, Scope 2, exact matches, acronym) in bold font 
was not done.  Did the WG in the call earlier today decide not to do that and, 
if so, why.  Many of the recommendations are almost identical to one another 
except for  these terms, so I think that doing this would highlight the key 
differences in the recommendations.  As I communicated before, the length and 
complexity of the motion makes this even more important.

*         I still think that in cases where we say "In cases where we say "For 
the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall 
be placed on the Reserved Names List (as found in Specification 5 of the 
current New gTLD Registry Agreement)" can be interpreted incorrectly.  The 
parenthetical clause is the problem in my opinion.  Our recommendations differ 
from those in Specification 5 of the current New gTLD Registration Agreement 
and I still think that we should change these occurrences to something like the 
following: "For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this 
recommendation shall be put in the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of 
the New gTLD Registry Agreement in place of any names in the current New gTLD 
Registry Agreement."  Note that the wording would need to change slightly for 
INGOs other than the RCRC and IOC because there are no names listed for them in 
the current agreement.

*         What was added in the new Resolve clause 5 works if the Council wants 
to delay consideration of the 'strong support' recommendations to a later time 
but it doesn't if they want to include them as consensus policy 
recommendations.  Delays are problematic because the train has already left the 
station.  I will listen to the MP3 of today's call so that I can better 
understand the thinking here.

Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:24 PM
To: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - 
IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013)

Thanks Mary.  I added some additional responses below.

Chuck

From: Mary Wong 
[mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]<mailto:[mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:21 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - 
IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013)

Hi again Chuck and everyone, thank you so much for the very detailed feedback; 
it is much appreciated! I've attempted to provide some initial responses to 
your suggestions as comments to your original message - please see below.

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: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 7:03 PM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - 
IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013)

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!)

[MARY] They were drafted as two separate Whereas clauses as the Council had two 
separate motions on two separate occasions; the first to deal with the top 
level, the second with the second level recommendations, as I recall. We are 
happy to make the change suggested if that is what the WG would prefer.
[Chuck Gomes] If they are different then they should be reported separately but 
we should make it clear that they are different, i.e., noting that one focuses 
on the top level and the other on the second level.


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.

[MARY] Yes, happy to do this if the WG agrees.
[Chuck Gomes] I am okay either way.


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.

[MARY] We do "publish" these types of documents in the form of a link and 
downloadable PDF (even when there is no public comment forum). We can certainly 
add the language to say that it was also sent to the Council.


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.

[MARY] Yes, we will do this.


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

[MARY] Please see Jim's and the IOC team's suggested edits for this.
[Chuck Gomes] I did.  They seemed okay to me.


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."

[MARY] We had thought that the preceding language referring to the current 
round would suffice; nonetheless, we can definitely amend the references to 
Spec 5.
[Chuck Gomes] I think it would remove the chances of misinterpretation.


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.

[MARY] We can add a separate Resolve clause for these recommendations if the WG 
so desires.
[Chuck Gomes] I support that.  It is not a good thing to try and add a lot of 
language on the fly in a Council meeting or even shortly before so doing this 
would make it easy to do if desired while at the same time making it easy to 
delete.  If we didn't anticipate the possibility of recommending policy for 
'strong support' items, why did we include them in our recommendations?


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".

[MARY] As much clarity as possible is always a good thing :) We will amend as 
the WG requests.


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)."

[MARY] We can do this as well.


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. . . . "

[MARY] Some of the language here was borrowed from recent Council motions that 
passed, e.g. For the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings. The 
main point here is to include, specifically, the reference to the Principles of 
Implementation and (following today's call) the Exception Procedures to be 
developed. We will amend accordingly, and per WG decision.

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

[MARY] Thank YOU for the detailed comments, Chuck and everyone!


Chuck

From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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