Re: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013)
Thanks for your detailed feedback, Chuck I must confess that in my haste to get the revised motion out to everyone as soon as possible after the call earlier today I omitted to do the two things you highlight in your message below which you'd also mentioned yesterday: the bolding and emphasis of the different levels and name types, and the rephrasing of the reference to Spec 5. I will be sure to add both to the next version I send out to the WG either tonight or early tomorrow. I can also add a further Whereas clause along the lines that you suggest. As for the new Resolved clause that adds the Strong Support recommendations, I am not sure if the Council will be in a position to discuss these in Buenos Aires if they are already going to go through the Consensus recommendations (but of course I could be wrong!) My assumption was that Thomas and Berry will, in their weekend update to the GNSO, highlight these additional recommendations and flag them as possible discussion items. In using the current language, I was attempting to make sure to further remind the Council of these recommendations but without "forcing" them to discuss them there and then, for fear that this could lead to a deferral of the vote. My thought was that any Councilor can propose a friendly amendment to this clause should it become apparent that indeed the Council wishes to discuss them prior to or during the vote. Before that I'm of course happy to amend as the WG wishes! Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx * One World. One Internet. * From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:49 AM To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: RE: REVISED draft motion (Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 06 NOV 2013) > 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 ³In cases where we say ³For > 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)² 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: ³For 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.² 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 support¹ recommendations to a later time > but it doesn¹t 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 today¹s 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] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:21 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; 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 > > > > * One World. One Internet. * > > > > From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 7:03 PM > To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" > <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 isn¹t 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 >> Group¹; I am okay with this but wonder if we should use the more commonly >> used title ³IGO-INGO PDP WG². In the same clause we should change Initial >> Report¹ to Draft Final Report¹. 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 ³the Working Group published its Final >> Report². 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 ³the Working Group published its >> Final Report at (insert link) and sent it to the GNSO Council, . . .² 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 organizations¹ to a RCRC organization¹ or RCRC organizations¹. > > > > [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 ³(as found in Specification 5 of the current >> New gTLD Registry Agreement)², I think we should instead have ³in >> Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.² 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 ³For 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.² > > > > [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 opposition¹. 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 didn¹t anticipate the possibility of recommending policy for > strong support¹ 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: ³The 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 Board². 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 ³String Ineligible for Delegation² to ³Strings >> Ineligible for Delegation². > > > > [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: ³To >> 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 Group¹s Final Report).² > > > > [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: ³The 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. . . . ² >> >> > > [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] 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 >> >> >> >> * One World. One Internet. * >> >> >> >> From: Berry Cobb Mail <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 12:21 AM >> To: "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <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 Wednesday¹s 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 SOI¹s >>> >>> 2. Chair¹s 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Attachment:
smime.p7s
|