I am fine with both of Petter’s suggestions. Also, maybe I missed it, but I couldn’t find anywhere in the draft where it was noted that Petter and I were selected as co-chairs. That should be in there, so we can bask in the full glory of our achievement – or suffer permanent damage to our reputations ;-) Best regards Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Petter Rindforth Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 2:35 PM To: Mary Wong Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Updated draft Initial Report Dear Mary and WG Members, Initially, I want to thank you all for some fantastic years and excellent work on this topic! Let's hope that all other groups of interest in this topic appreciate the work, proposals and conclusions... I have only two minor suggestions - referring here to the clean PDF version: Page 28f of the clean PDF version "As this initial consultation did not provide the WG with sufficient information and guidance to reach substantive conclusions, the WG requested that ICANN assist it by engaging an external legal expert to provide it with a more detailed analysis". May I propose a more positive formulation, to not be readed as a complaint against Mr Hans Corell: "Although this initial consultation provided the WG with some basic information, the WG concluded that there was still outstanding questions, a need for further information and guidance to reach substantive conclusions, and the WG therefore requested that ICANN assist it by engaging an external legal expert to provide it with a more detailed analysis." Page 34: "The WG reviewed and discussed the IGO Small Group Proposal at its meetings on 13 October and 20 October" I recommend to add the year (2016): "The WG reviewed and discussed the IGO Small Group Proposal at its meetings on 13 October 2016 and 20 October 2016". All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 6 januari 2017 17:58:38 +01:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>: Dear Working Group members, Thank you for your eagle eyes and helpful comments on the last draft of our Initial Report, last circulated in December 2016. Staff has now updated the draft with all the suggestions and comments received. The updated draft Initial Report is available for download and review on our WG wiki space, in both clean and redlined Word and PDF versions (as you prefer): https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw. Please note that there are likely to be some remaining formatting and typographical errors that staff has not yet caught in this version; we will of course be sure to review the final document carefully prior to publishing for public comment. Please note also that we have added in the latest WG Charter (as amended by the GNSO Council in April 2015) and new Annexes (per Phil’s suggestion) that show the full text of the IGO Small Group Proposal and compilation of GAC advice on the topic since 2012. We have also restored the footnote numbering in Professor Swaine’s memo and added in a list of WG members. As agreed on our last call, please let us know if you spot any significant errors or omissions by next Friday 13 January 2017. Following that date, staff will do one last pass through the document and prepare it for publication for public comment, early the following week (week beginning 16 January 2017). With a 40-day comment period, this means that the public comment forum will close at the end of February, in time for ICANN58. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

Mary, A reference change, section 6.1.1 - I am listed as an individual, it should show as BC. I requested this some time ago, but might not have been logged in the database. Thank you! Sincerely, Jay Chapman * <http://www.digimedia.com>* 102 S. Broadway - Edmond, OK 73034 jay@digimedia.com - (940) 691-1800 This e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s). On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:

Mary,

Hold the press - Most important error on page 44 item 24 - Can not be published like this !!! :-)

Other than that issue it looks very good, a lot of work has been put into its preparation and it shows.

Best regards,

Paul Tattersfield

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:44 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

...

I am fine with both of Petter’s suggestions.

Also, maybe I missed it, but I couldn’t find anywhere in the draft where it was noted that Petter and I were selected as co-chairs. That should be in there, so we can bask in the full glory of our achievement – or suffer permanent damage to our reputations ;-)

Best regards

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*

*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*

*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Petter Rindforth *Sent:* Monday, January 09, 2017 2:35 PM *To:* Mary Wong *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR FINAL REVIEW: Updated draft Initial Report

Dear Mary and WG Members,

Initially, I want to thank you all for some fantastic years and excellent work on this topic!

Let's hope that all other groups of interest in this topic appreciate the work, proposals and conclusions...

I have only two minor suggestions - referring here to the clean PDF version:

*Page 28f of the clean PDF version*

"As this initial consultation did not provide the WG with sufficient information and guidance to reach substantive conclusions, the WG requested that ICANN assist it by engaging an external legal expert to provide it with a more detailed analysis".

May I propose a more positive formulation, to not be readed as a complaint against Mr Hans Corell:

*"Although this initial consultation provided the WG with some basic information, the WG concluded that there was still outstanding questions, a need for further information and guidance to reach substantive conclusions, and the WG therefore requested that ICANN assist it by engaging an external legal expert to provide it with a more detailed analysis."*

*Page 34:*

"The WG reviewed and discussed the IGO Small Group Proposal at its meetings on 13 October and 20 October"

I recommend to add the year (2016):

*"The WG reviewed and discussed the IGO Small Group Proposal at its meetings on 13 October 2016 and 20 October 2016".*

All the best,

Petter

--

Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB

Stureplan 4c, 4tr

114 35 Stockholm

Sweden

Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 <+46%208%20463%2010%2010>

Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360

E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu

www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.

Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu

Thank you

6 januari 2017 17:58:38 +01:00, skrev Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>:

Dear Working Group members,

Thank you for your eagle eyes and helpful comments on the last draft of our Initial Report, last circulated in December 2016. Staff has now updated the draft with all the suggestions and comments received. The updated draft Initial Report is available for download and review on our WG wiki space, in both clean and redlined Word and PDF versions (as you prefer): https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw.

Please note that there are likely to be some remaining formatting and typographical errors that staff has not yet caught in this version; we will of course be sure to review the final document carefully prior to publishing for public comment. Please note also that we have added in the latest WG Charter (as amended by the GNSO Council in April 2015) and new Annexes (per Phil’s suggestion) that show the full text of the IGO Small Group Proposal and compilation of GAC advice on the topic since 2012. We have also restored the footnote numbering in Professor Swaine’s memo and added in a list of WG members.

As agreed on our last call, please let us know if you spot any significant errors or omissions by next *Friday 13 January 2017*. Following that date, staff will do one last pass through the document and prepare it for publication for public comment, early the following week (week beginning 16 January 2017). With a 40-day comment period, this means that the public comment forum will close at the end of February, in time for ICANN58.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889 <(603)%20574-4889>

_______________________________________________

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

------------------------------

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature> Version: 2016.0.7996 / Virus Database: 4749/13706 - Release Date: 01/04/17

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

P.S. My comments were based on the page numbering in the CLEAN PDF version of the document that Mary had linked to in her email from last week. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:50 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

I completed my review, and my comments are below. They're mostly formatting and stylistic in nature. See in particular point #10 below, where I think everything would be a lot simpler if we simply scrap the attempts at incorporating the Swaine report directly into our draft report, and instead simply link to an entirely separate PDF.

Alternatively, there are ways to join 2 separate PDFs (using Adobe Acrobat, etc.), which might be better than trying to do it all in MS Word. i.e. generate a PDF for the Swaine report, generate a PDF for our own report (minus the Swaine section), and then just join the two).

1. page 2: the page numbering in the Table of Contents for items 13 and 14 seem to be messed up (jumps from page 65 for item 12 to page 0 and then to page 5). It looks like all the page numbering reset after page 94.

2. top of page 18: for the long (nearly half-page) quote of Professor Swaine (multiple paragraphs) that are italicized, one might consider doing an indentation of the entire quote (not just the first line, but changing the left margin so that the entire text is shifted to the right), in order to further emphasize that it's a long quote. That would then make it a bit more clear where the quote begins and ends, relative to the remainder of the "normal" text in the document. See the quoted text on page 20 (after the bullet point, around the 3rd paragraph) where it's also indented.

3. page 20, paragraph 3: the quote ends with:

rules"].

I think it should be:

rules.]"

See page 94 for how the original quote looked in Swaine's report.

4. Page 26, first line: "A PDP was not, however, not initiated…" is obviously mixed up! It should be something like "However, a PDP was not initiated…"

5. page 33: the long quotes (in 3 separate places) from the IGO Small Group Proposal are indented (which is nice, see my point #2 above), but are not in italics. Probably should italicize them to be consistent (around the middle of the page, and also the 2nd quote towards the bottom, and the 3rd quote starting at the bottom and going on to the next page).

6. page 34: last paragraph, 6th line from the bottom, "…stripping a losing registrant of his right to appeal to a national court…" -- should be gender neutral, i.e. "his" might be seen as objectionable (and the registrant might also be a corporation or other organizational structure). Consider changing to "…stripping a losing registrant of **the** right to appeal to a national court…" I've not double-checked the entire document, but other cases of non-gender neutral language might also need to be corrected.

7. page 38 (bottom), extending to the top of page 39: consider italicizing the long quote from the GAC, for consistency with styling of other long quotes (see my point #2 above too; this quote as indented).

8. page 45: as per my previous comment on the last draft (see comment #13 of that one), I think the name of the NPOC should be double checked -- on our document it's listed as "Not-for-Profit Organizational Concerns Constituency", but that doesn't match their name at:

http://www.npoc.org/index.php https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg/npoc

I don't know what their "official" name is, but it would seem to be "Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns" (based on their own website and what's on the GNSO website)

Same for the ISPCP -- their own website says:

http://www.ispcp.info/

"Internet Service Providers & Connectivity Providers"

and the GNSO website says:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/csg/isp

"ISPs and Connectivity Providers Constituency"

One should use their official names (which I'm still unsure of!).

9. page 46: as per comment #8 above, whatever names are finally determined to be authoritative on page 45 should match what is used on page 46 (ISPCP doesn't match now between pages). I'd also suggest removing the "The GNSO" or "The" prefixes preceding the names in the bullet points on page 46 (might add "the following" at the end of the paragraph above it, to make it flow nicely after the "The"s are removed, i.e. "….were received from the following:"

10. it looks like the footnotes got corrupted somehow, perhaps when copied/pasted. It says "Error! Bookmark not defined." in various places in bold, e.g.

a] page 69: footnote 8 b] page 70: footnote 11 c] page 71: footnote 15: (seems the formatting got changed near the end of it, as the text is darker than the rest of the footnote) d] page 76: footnote 35: corrupted, twice! e] page 77: footnote 38: corrupted, twice! f] page 77: footnote 39: corrupted, twice! g] page 78: footnote 41 (continued from prior page): corrupted twice! h] page 78: footnote 42 i] page 78: footnote 43 j] page 79: footnote 46 k] page 79: footnote 47 l] page 82: footnote 63: corrupted, twice! m] page 83: footnote 65: corrupted, twice! n] page 84: footnote 68: corrupted, twice! o] page 84: footnote 69 p] page 84: footnote 70 q] page 90: footnote 94 r] page 90: footnote 96 s] page 92: footnote 103 t] page 93: footnote 104: corrupted, twice u] page 93: footnote 106

Given the ongoing problems with footnote, perhaps it'd be best to publish the Swaine report as a separate document (in its original form), rather than continue to try to incorporate it into our own draft report?? I'm sure this would make things much easier for ICANN staff, especially given that the footnotes might get corrupted again in the future (e.g. the final report), if various page numbers in the rest of the document change, etc.

11. As noted earlier, the page numbers are corrupted after page 94 (i.e. it goes 94, 0, 1…).

12. I support the other comments already made to the mailing list by Petter, Phil, Paul Tattersfield and Jay.

Sincerely,

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

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Dear Working Group members,

Thank you for your eagle eyes and helpful comments on the last draft of our Initial Report, last circulated in December 2016. Staff has now updated the draft with all the suggestions and comments received. The updated draft Initial Report is available for download and review on our WG wiki space, in both clean and redlined Word and PDF versions (as you prefer): https://community.icann.org/x/ZwG4Aw.

Please note that there are likely to be some remaining formatting and typographical errors that staff has not yet caught in this version; we will of course be sure to review the final document carefully prior to publishing for public comment. Please note also that we have added in the latest WG Charter (as amended by the GNSO Council in April 2015) and new Annexes (per Phil’s suggestion) that show the full text of the IGO Small Group Proposal and compilation of GAC advice on the topic since 2012. We have also restored the footnote numbering in Professor Swaine’s memo and added in a list of WG members.

As agreed on our last call, please let us know if you spot any significant errors or omissions by next Friday 13 January 2017. Following that date, staff will do one last pass through the document and prepare it for publication for public comment, early the following week (week beginning 16 January 2017). With a 40-day comment period, this means that the public comment forum will close at the end of February, in time for ICANN58.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

Telephone: +1-603-5744889

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp