Hi folks, New errors spotted in what staff sent out last night (just woke up, and thought I'd do a fresh pass comparing the documents). For Recommendations #1 through #4, it's clear that Jay Chapman and Nat Cohen didn't have their input considered (which I recorded as the same as Zak's). For the options in Recommendation #5, they *are* recorded for those 2 gentlemen. I think at this stage, the document that is most accurate is the one I prepared. My spreadsheet was 3 hours of uninterrupted work, by the way, by one (unpaid) person. [it would have taken less time, had I tried not to make it 'pretty', i.e. the alternating background colours by row on the far left columns, the colour scheme in general, the border formatting, etc.] It's also the easiest to use (all in one table) and most functional (includes reference links to the input). The staff-prepared document(s) are spread over multiple pages, requiring much harder "navigation" for any person to check their input, have less information, and don't capture some of the nuances in positions. Since there are only a few hours before the coming call, I'm not going to waste further precious time attempting to reconcile the two versions anymore (there might be other errors in what staff produced, but they can check their work against mine). I'll trust my document as a solid starting point, unless folks start finding big errors in it. As for today's call, I reiterate my availability for a Section 3.7 discussion (required with the Chair) either before or after it. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Actually, I spoke too soon. For Recommendation #2, the text was changed (to what I initially thought was acceptable), but it only captured *part* of the change, not the full change. i.e. my change was:
"An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered trademark or service marks rights for which it might adduce….."
But this new document instead says:
"An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered rights for which it might adduce….."
i.e. the *second* "trademark or service" marks is *missing* from this new version. So, unless the wording is changed again, count me as *NOT SUPPORT* of this text.
I'm going to go through this more thoroughly later, and consolidate all future comments into a single email.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
This is late, and given what I've posted the past few days, one would have expected it to have been triple-checked for accuracy, etc. I went directly to Recommendation #2, and noticed I'm now listed as "Support" and Paul Tattersfield is listed as "do not support" (whereas in the document before this, sent by Petter, both Paul T. and I were listed as "do not support"):
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html
Here was my comment: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
and Paul T's: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html
both of us wanted slight changing of the wording.
So, I see that the document that Steve circulated *does* change the wording, so my "Support" in the new document is accurate. But, then since Paul T agreed with me (and presumably agrees with the new text), why is he still listed as "Do Not Support"???
Also, we know from posts on the mailing list that Jim Bikoff expressly said he only supports Recommendation #1 !
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html
"All, please understand my position in support of recommendation 1 that no change to UDRP or URS or special procedure is warranted.
No support for other recommendations."
So, that's 2 errors (i.e. Paul T flips to "Support" and Jim Bikoff is added to "Do not support")
So, this *still* has *obvious* errors, and I haven't even reviewed it closely (so there could be, and probably are, even more). I have so little confidence, I basically have to *redo* it on my own, on a compressed time frame.
As for the agenda, I'd like my new Section 3.7 appeal to be a topic added to the agenda (which does require a call between the chair and myself, and since we're both going to be present -- or it could be immediately after the call), along with the general topic of how it's humanly possible to get a final report out by Sunday. Or if it's already been decided that that timeline is off the table, tell us now, to release some pressure from this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
With apologies for late delivery, as George noted, please find the proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Welcome / SOIs Review of Initial Consensus Level Designations Next Steps AOB
In regards to agenda item 2, please see the attached document to support those discussions. This document follows and is a revised version of the one sent by Petter on 9 June 2018.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
office tel: +1.310.301.5800
office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp