[Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

Fri Aug 3 17:54:01 UTC 2018

Thanks Mary.

I support including ‘Red Star of David’.

I am a little confused about ‘Red Star of David in Israel’.  Why is that being brought up now?  Why does Stephane suggest it be included?

Chuck

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> 
Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 8:21 AM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail at berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

Thanks for the detailed review and comments, Chuck.

To your question about “Red Star of David” – yes, it is not currently on the Finite List that was circulated for review. This is why Berry highlighted the issue toward the end of the call yesterday, and why we thought providing some additional background might be helpful (per my email late yesterday). Stephane also subsequently mentioned the name “Red Star of David in Israel”.

We await the Working Group’s further direction on these two terms, but our sense of the discussion from the call yesterday was that while there was some support for and no objection to adding “Red Star of David” (noting that it is already reserved at the top level and is currently on the interim reserved list for the second level), there has not been any request for or prior inclusion of “Red Star of David in Israel”.

Thank you.

Cheers

Mary & Berry

From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> >
Date: Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:34
To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> >, "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> " <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

Thanks Berry.  

Regarding the Finite List:

*	Am I correct that Red Star of David is not on the Finite List?
*	Will it be added?

Regarding the Report of Public Comments:

*	Here are some suggestions for the response to the CPH comments on page 9: 

*	I think that the word ‘assured’ should be ‘assures’.
*	I suggest changing ‘in regards to’ to ‘in regard to’ as suggested in the spell check.
*	To make the response clearer and more responsive and to make a couple of minor edits, I suggest rewording it to something like the following: “The WG understands the concern and would like to clarify the following: should the recommendations be adopted by the GNSO Council and Board and subsequently implemented by ICANN Org, the only change to Registry Agreements will be to the Specification 5 Reserved Names list ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_reserved-2D2013-2D07-2D08-2Den&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=iVZ3UQ0CE7Yad9M18OtX8Wp3oClzbtFf0_-RlCMqkFg&s=NI3UnWpjoLAZuVINJXN9923L-2b6Y-jEuuDigakjpEw&e=> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en [icann.org]).  Further, the updated consensus policy regarding the finite list will link to this list.” 
*	Note that this rewording fixed two minor edits that I think were needed: 1) in the original wording I think ‘assured’ should be ‘assures’; 2) I changed ‘in regards to’ to ‘regarding’ as suggested by the spell checker.

*	On page 10, I don’t think the response to the NCSG comments about Recommendations 3, 4, 5 and 6 is responsive.  Repeating what we said for our responses to the NCSG comments for Recommendations 1 and 2 doesn’t seem useful here.  It seems to me it would be better to say something like this: “The WG fully supports the Council’s intent to have a finite list, but we believe that it is important to provide a mechanism to correct errors and update that list without having to initiate a new PDP.  We believe that the procedures detailed in these recommendations for making any such changes is consistent with the Council’s intent while at the same time providing a much timelier means of fixing errors and accommodating verified changes to the list, i.e., deletions or additions of national society names.”

Regarding the Final Report, in Annex A, should we add that participants who were not members of the original WG were invited to become members of the Reconvened WG?  This seems like an important point to me.

Chuck

From: Gnso-igo-ingo < <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of  <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> mail at berrycobb.com
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM
To:  <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

Hi All,

Per our discussions today on the last Reconvened WG call, please find attached the final deliverables. 

1.	Public Comment Review Tool – contains suggested edits from Stephane (gnso-IGO-INGO-Reconvened-pcrt-20180802.docx)
2.	Final Report – contains all agreed edits from the participants on the call (gnso-IGO-INGO-Reconvened-final-report-v1.2.docx)
3.	Finite List of RC Identifiers (National Society names list_v0.9.xlsx)

The WG has until 5 August 2018 @ 23:59 to make any last minute proposals for changes to the documents.  Also note, that Mary will send out a revised version of the draft resolution under separate cover.

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobb

From: Gnso-igo-ingo [ <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org> mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of  <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> mail at berrycobb.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34
To:  <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

Hi All,

Please find below our planned agenda for Thursday’s Reconvened WG meeting for 2 August 2018 at 14:00 UTC.  The public comment period is now closed with three submissions from the ALAC, RySG/RrSG, and the NCSG ( <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2Dcomments_red-2Dcross-2Dprotection-2Dinitial-2D2018-2D06-2D21-2Den&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=iVZ3UQ0CE7Yad9M18OtX8Wp3oClzbtFf0_-RlCMqkFg&s=XdyDiWyCfP4PQ7lhU7gL0utP2lTQlqKOnGbDUJTRmKw&e=> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-21-en [icann.org]). 

This is our planned final call for the Reconvened WG.  Should agreement be found across the public comments, final report, and draft resolution, the WG will have until 5 August 2018 @ 23:59 UTC to review the final documents prior to submission to the GNSO by the Motions and Documents deadline of 6 August 2018.

(0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates

(1) Review of submitted public comments (attached, gnso-IGO-INGO-Reconvened-pcrt-20180731.docx)

(2) Review of Final Report & finite list for outstanding issues (attached, gnso-IGO-INGO-Reconvened-final-report-v1.1.docx, National Society names list_v0.8.xlsx)

(3) Review of draft Council resolution (sent via separate email)

(4) Close of call and WG

Thank you.

B

Berry A. Cobb

GNSO Policy Consultant

@berrycobb

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/attachments/20180803/add8d6d4/attachment-0001.html>