[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Next steps for our Working Group and our Initial Report

Sun Dec 18 18:55:46 UTC 2016

Hi again,

It looks like "auto-correct" automatically fixed some of the "typos" I
was trying to point out in my post, LOL! e.g. in #1, the typo was
"organiations" -- anyhow, it should be clear to staff what I meant.
:-)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 1:52 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here are my comments on the latest draft.
>
> (all page numbers are for the PDF version, the page numbers differ
> slightly in the MS Word version)
>
> 1. Page 3: section 1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, typo: "organizations"
> should be "organizations"
>
> 2. Page 3: section 1.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, "Uniform Dispute
> Resolution Policy" is actually *NOT* the full name of the UDRP. It
> should instead be Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, see:
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en
>
> 3. Page 4: Recommendation #4, 1st paragraph, 2nd line: it'd make more
> sense to move "(but not INGOs)" directly after "which IGOs" in the
> first line, as it would read better, i.e. "which IGOs (but not INGOs)
> may claim….."
>
> *** NB: If this change is made, it may need to be changed elsewhere in
> the document too ***
>
> 4. page 8: add new line between (4) and (5), to match the spacing of the others
>
> 5. page 14, recommendation #3, 2nd paragraph (i.e. the unbolded
> section): I would suggest flipping the order of "use and registration"
> to become "registration and use" in both the 1st and 3rd lines, as
> that's what folks are accustomed to (and to be consistent with the
> order in the bolded section in the last line of the paragraph directly
> above).
>
> 6. page 14, recommendation #4, 2nd line: delete the *second* "(but not
> INGOs)" after "certain circumstances". It seems this instance already
> followed my suggestion #3 above, about moving "but not INGOs"
> direction after "IGOs" in the first line.
>
> 7. page 27, section 3.3, first paragraph: would move "(including the
> International Red Cross….under a previous GNSO PDP)" up, to directly
> after "INGOs" in line 3 of that paragraph.
>
> 8. page 32, 3rd paragraph: as noted earlier, it's not correct that no
> GAC member elected to become a WG member --- Gary Campbell is from the
> GAC, according to:
>
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895
>
> 9. page 36, 3rd column, top; we should copy the same text from the 3rd
> column of page 37 at the top, i.e. "Allowing an IGO to file via a
> representative third party" to that section as well (i.e. not just the
> rapid relief, but also the UDRP version). Also, the 2nd column of page
> 36 has "Policy Guidance document to be developed --- that should be
> copied above too. Or, as noted by Phil Corwin, comment [A7], perhaps
> add a new row in the table to handle both. Comment [A9] is only
> applying to the rapid relief section at present.
>
> 10. page 41, section 5.1, first paragraph, line 4, typo, change
> "wheter" to "whether"
>
> 11. page 42, section 5.2, 4th bullet point, typo, change
> "disctinction" to "distinction"
>
> 12. page 43, section 6.1, first paragraph, 2nd line, typo, change
> "condcut" to "conduct"
>
> 13. page 45: should double-check the *official* name of each
> constituency, as there are slight variations, e.g. at:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies
>
> The draft template is using slightly different language for:
>
> - RrSG ("Registrar" should be plural "Registrars")
> - RySG ("Registry" should be plural "Registries")
> - NPOC ("Not For Profit Operational Concerns")
>
> 14. page 46, section 7.1, 3rd bullet point, typo for "Registries"
>
> 15. I stopped my review at page 60. As discussed previously and on the
> call, the Swaine document should be reproduced verbatim, with his
> original footnote numbering, in its own separate section (can still be
> within the same final PDF, though).
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> As Phil notes, the Working Group members who were on the call that just ended have agreed on the following timeline for the publication of our Initial Report:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         Thursday 22 December 2016 – deadline for submitting any other comments or edits you may have on the draft that was circulated (attached again here as a PDF document). Please send your comments and edits to this email list to allow all other members to view them, and to ensure that we do not lose anyone’s comments on what is a fairly long document.
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         End of first week of January 2017 – staff to circulate an updated version of the draft, as a proposed final version of the Initial Report.
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         End of second week of January 2017 (7 days from circulation of the proposed final document) – deadline for Working Group members to send final comments (which are expected to be mostly typographical or editorial at that stage).
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         Beginning of third week of January 2017 (latest) – staff to publish Initial Report for public comment, for the minimum mandatory 40-day period (note that the Working Group can decide to extend the duration of the comment period if there is a request from the community to do so)
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         Late February 2017 – close of public comment period (unless extended).
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         11-16 March 2017 – ICANN58 in Copenhagen; Working Group to hold open session to discuss its review of public comments and any potential changes to its preliminary recommendations with the community.
>>
>>
>>
>> ·         Following ICANN58 – Working Group to complete Final Report and submit it to the GNSO Council for the Council’s review and action.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Working Group co-chairs will determine, in consultation with staff and the Working Group, whether to hold a webinar (i.e. an information session) 2-3 weeks after the publication of the Initial Report, to explain the preliminary recommendations and take questions from the community.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Working Group co-chairs will also determine the date of the next Working Group meeting. This is likely to occur toward the end of the public comment period, unless a number of substantive comments are sent in early on.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks to everyone for all the work that has gone into this PDP – staff would like to take this opportunity to also wish you all a very happy new year!
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Mary