ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Latest revised draft motion for review/discussion

  • To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Latest revised draft motion for review/discussion
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 03:25:18 +0000

The motion looks really good to me.  It's not essential but we may want to 
remove the redundancy in the sentences like this one in the Resolve clauses: 
"For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on 
the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement entered 
into for future rounds."  (It's probably easiest to just delete 'entered into 
for future rounds'.

Also, in the last bullet of Resolved clause 4, I don't think we need "provided 
that reasonable steps are taken to minimize any likely confusion".  I think 
that may have been my mistake.


From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 9:54 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Latest revised draft motion for review/discussion

Dear WG members:

Please find attached (1) a clean version of the latest version of the draft 
motion to be submitted to the GNSO Council; and (2) a redlined version of the 
same, comparing this latest version with the one that was sent around and 
discussed on the call earlier today (Thursday). I believe that we have captured 
most, if not all, of the suggested edits that Chuck, Stephane and the RCRC 
team, Jim and the IOC team, and Claudia and the INGO team, sent to us today, 
with the following exceptions and modifications:

  *   There is now additional and alternative wording (highlighted in yellow 
and square-bracketed) dealing with the possibility that those 
recommendations/proposals that received Strong Support but Significant 
Opposition (SSbSO) may yet be dealt with by the Council as Consensus 
recommendations (per Chuck's note of yesterday). The WG may choose either one 
of the two options currently shown on the motion, or leave the decision to the 
GNSO Council.
  *   Chuck, Jim and Claudia - we have taken on board all of your suggested 
edits and included them as much as we could while maintaining what we thought 
was language consistency across the motion. Please check that we have 
represented your suggestions and views accurately.
  *   Stephane - we have also taken on board and accordingly amended some of 
the language of the motion, although not necessarily in the precise terms you 
may have suggested. One reason for this is that we wished to maintain 
consistency across all the Consensus recommendations, although we have inserted 
a reference to the Minority Statements in the Resolved clauses, as requested 
(which as I noted on the call earlier today is not usually done with GNSO 
Council motions). Please check that the resulting language is acceptable to you 
and the RCRC.
Thanks to everyone for working through this fairly complicated and lengthy 
motions, especially those who pointed out several areas where I was not as 
accurate as I should have been. We look forward to discussing this and the 
final Report with you all on the call on Friday.


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. *

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy