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@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 8:21 AM To: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Chuck <consult@cgomes.com <mailto:consult@cgomes.com> > Date: Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:34 To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> >, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> " <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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...> 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@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM To: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org> mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34 To: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@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-2D...> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2... [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

Mary, All, Thank you for forwarding Stephane’s note explaining that the two names represent the official and commonly used names of the society. Having confirmation of that fact, it is certainly appropriate to include “Red Star of David in Israel” along with “Red Star of David” on the finite list, as the English translations of the official and commonly used names of Magen David Adom. This is consistent with the outcome of our Report. Specifically, it is consistent with part (b) of the Council’s amendments, which are incorporation into the Working Group’s Recommendation 1. Recommendation 1 goes on to state that the applicable languages for the list are English and the official language(s) of the state of origin. This is also consistent with the Framework of principles (discussed in Section 3.2 of the Report) that was developed for assembling the finite list, which states that non-Latin character designations should include an English language translation. Red Star of David [in Israel] is just such a translation. (Magen David Adom is a *transliteration* of the Hebrew name of the society, not a translation. It should be noted that in the finite list, most (if not all) of the names in the “English” column are *translations* of the societys’ names) Taking all of this in consideration, it should be appropriate and non-controversial to include these two names on the finite list. Indeed, it would seem to go against our recommendations and principles to *exclude* these two names. I trust we can wrap this up in short order. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 2:04 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Hello again Chuck and everyone,

Staff notes your (and Greg’s) support for including “Red Star of David”.

As to “Red Star of David in Israel”, here is an extract from the note that Stephane (on behalf of the Red Cross) sent to the mailing list following the Working Group call yesterday:

*“It would indeed be valuable to add the names "Red Star of David" and "Red Star of David in Israel" (in English) to the table of identifiers and names for reservation - thus as the translation into English of the official and commonly used names the National Society of the Magen David Adom in Israel.”*

Please let us know if there are any additional questions or comments – and Stephane may wish to chime in as well. Thank you all!

Cheers

Mary

*From: *Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> on behalf of Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> *Date: *Friday, August 3, 2018 at 13:54 *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC

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@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, August 3, 2018 8:21 AM *To:* Chuck <consult@cgomes.com>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org> on behalf of Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> *Date: *Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:34 *To: *Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" < gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>). 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 <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of * mail@berrycobb.com *Sent:* Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM *To:* gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *mail@berrycobb.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34 *To:* gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...>).

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

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

Hi All, Absent any objections, these two names were added to the finite list. I will send the final package of documents to the list shortly. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: Chuck [mailto:consult@cgomes.com] Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 17:42 To: 'Mary Wong'; 'Berry Cobb Mail'; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC I also support including ‘Red Star of David in Israel’. Chuck From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 11:04 AM To: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC Hello again Chuck and everyone, Staff notes your (and Greg’s) support for including “Red Star of David”. As to “Red Star of David in Israel”, here is an extract from the note that Stephane (on behalf of the Red Cross) sent to the mailing list following the Working Group call yesterday: “It would indeed be valuable to add the names "Red Star of David" and "Red Star of David in Israel" (in English) to the table of identifiers and names for reservation - thus as the translation into English of the official and commonly used names the National Society of the Magen David Adom in Israel.” Please let us know if there are any additional questions or comments – and Stephane may wish to chime in as well. Thank you all! Cheers Mary From: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> on behalf of Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Date: Friday, August 3, 2018 at 13:54 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC 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@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 8:21 AM To: Chuck <consult@cgomes.com>; Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org> on behalf of Chuck <consult@cgomes.com> Date: Friday, August 3, 2018 at 10:34 To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail@berrycobb.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo@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...> 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 <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org> mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of <mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> mail@berrycobb.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34 To: <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2... [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D...> ). 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

Re: acronyms I'm not sure that this belongs in our Report, but it appears that the acronyms are not currently protected. Please note the attached informal survey of .COM and .ORG. David Maher From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 9:34 AM To: mail@berrycobb.com; gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en). 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 <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org] On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2...). 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

Thanks, Berry David David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 From: mail@berrycobb.com <mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2018 3:58 PM To: David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org>; 'Chuck' <consult@cgomes.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC Hi David and all, Thank you for your input. The only reference to acronyms in the WG's Final Report are to only point out that they are out of scope per the GNSO Council's instruction. They will be addressed in the process of reconciling GAC Advice with the previous IGO-INGO WG's recommendation among the GNSO, GAC, and the ICANN Board. Based on your attachment of the current use of the acronyms in .COM and .ORG, I'd like to make clear how recommendations of reservation protection are/will be implemented for full names, especially since these policy recommendations include legacy gTLDs in addition to New gTLDs. Should a name already be registered, it will only become reserved should it follow the entire domain name lifecycle. Specifically, if a domain expires, follows the redemption grace period, and enters "Pending Delete" is at which point a Registry Operator would reserve the domain and no longer be made available for registration. Reservation implementation should not interfere in normal domain practices, where already registered by a Registrant not associated with the protected organization, should that Registrant chose to transfer from one Registrar to another or to another Registrant. This will be reconfirmed during the IRT should this WG's recommendations be adopted by the Council and Board. Until the reconciliation of recommendations occurs for acronyms, it's too early to know what that protection outcome will be. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb GNSO Policy Consultant @berrycobb From: David W. Maher [mailto:dmaher@pir.org] Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 16:00 To: Chuck; mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG on IFRC/ICRC Protections - Agenda - 2 August 2018 @ 14:00 UTC Re: acronyms I'm not sure that this belongs in our Report, but it appears that the acronyms are not currently protected. Please note the attached informal survey of .COM and .ORG. David Maher From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Friday, August 3, 2018 9:34 AM To: mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com>; gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en). 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 <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2018 2:21 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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@icann.org] On Behalf Of mail@berrycobb.com<mailto:mail@berrycobb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 22:34 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@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://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-2...). 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