Hi,

Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.

The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.

The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.

I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.

I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.

In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.

thanks

avri



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Thomas Rickert <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> All,
> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
> 
> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
> 
> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
> 
> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
> 
> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
> 
> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
> 
> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
> 
> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
> 
> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
> 
> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
> 
> Thanks again,
> Thomas
> 
>