Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC
Hi All, My apologies for the delay in sending the notes of our meeting on the 14th of December. Per the agenda below, staff reviewed the deliverable example with the WG for the eventual finite list of International Federation & National Society names to be reserved. As noted below, this is only to assist the WG to create a finite list of identifiers that can be validated, reconciled and free from errors when it eventually becomes implemented by ICANN staff (subject to GNSO Council and Board approval). Stephane then took the WG through the three examples he and his team first provided in Abu Dhabi and later sent to the mailing list. The intent of this example was to show relevance on the variations of formal National Society Names and the use of "Common or Usual" names. As noted on the mailing list from the IFRC General Counsel, National Societies are legal entities created under national law and thus their formal name. They are latter on admitted as a member to the IFRC. The use of the "Common or Usual" name is left to the National Society itself and thus the requirement to collaborate with the 190 National Societies to fully understand their common or usual use. In short, this led the WG to focus around four elements that can make up the variations of the formal and common use names. Do note, that no decisions were made on this call. Variant attributes: 1. Formal/Official name vs. "common or usual" name - the formal name will be supplied by the IFRC and acts as the foundation for a reconcilable list and collaboration is required with each National Society to understand the common or usual name(s). a. ACTION: WG to define either common or usual name for purposes of documenting its use in the WG's recommendation report. 2. Definite Articles ("the", "society") - the use of definite articles is associated to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. The definite article use can use both, one, or the other. 3. Language (English + Official Language(s)) - there was discussion about official language(s) as supplied from GAC advice versus "national language" as determined from the original WG's recommendation. This WG discussed that there was not much deliberation on languages other than English and that the original WG's intent was to match GAC advice on the use of "Official Language(s)" and likely a mistake to document national language. Thus, a few National Societies might have more than one official language. The important element is that each language is properly identified and can be traced backed to the English name of the respective National Society for reconciliation purposes. 4. Country Designation - this is also a variant form to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. Again, no decisions were made on this call. This is a working draft of elements that can form likely variants from the formal National Society names. Another aspect that was discussed is how are common or usual names can be confirmed. How can this WG confirm the validity of submissions from National Societies for the definitive list? What are safeguards? Who validates use? How does the formula/ruleset prevent the creation of new common names? Possible forms of validation could be: . Use on website . mailing list . campaigns . vehicles . uniforms . logos Stephane reinforced that the intent of identifying the most commonly used variants by National Societies is not to develop an open ended list, but a list that contains only the most important variants. Therefore, collaboration with each National Society will be crucial is developing the finite list for reservation. After the example as explained below in further detail, validation may not be required. Also of note, staff provided an update from one portion of the IRT implementing the recommendations that did not conflict with GAC advice and adopted by the Board. There, a procedure is being implemented to handle adds/deletes to the Spec 5 reservation list once the policy effective date has been established. The prior version only had the GAC informing ICANN Org of any changes to RCRC, IOC and IGO full names. Based on community input, the procedure now includes the GNSO being advised of any proposed changes and it will allow sufficient time to either confirm or express concerns with the proposed change prior to implementation. It is expected that this procedure will be used for the RC National Society names under discussion with this WG as well once it is passed to the IRT for implementation. And finally... Next Steps: Staff will work with the RCRC representative to develop an integrated example of identifiers of 5 to 10 National Societies that will form the basis of the finite list which is this group's primary deliverable. The intent is to merge the variant suggestions provided by Stephane with the template supplied by staff and better understand the possible variants from the four elements defined above. Should the WG approve the four elements and that the 5 to 10 examples meet the WG's criteria, then Stephane and his team will work with the remaining 180 or so National Societies to develop the final finite list of identifiers. At this point, we do not know how long it will take to compile the example of 5 to 10 National Societies. We hope to first populate the 5 to 10 with National Society identifiers that have already been supplied by Stephane's example and what exists on the Specification 5 list today. This will then be used to collaborate with the 5 to 10 National Societies and validate the variation of identifiers. For now, we are targeting end of January 2018 for the WG to reconvene, but it could be early February. After collaboration on our working example, I will communicate back to this group with a proposed date for the WG to meet again. In the meantime, I invite WG members who were not on the call to listen to the recording (https://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/2017-12-14+IGO+INGO+PDP+Working+ Group+on+Red+Cross+names). Should you have questions, please send them to the list. Thank you for your time. B Berry Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: Gnso-igo-ingo [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 09:03 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call (scheduled for Wednesday 14 December at 18:00 UTC). As a part of the agenda review, please also review the attached files from the representatives of the Red Cross and staff. These were discussed at the informal session in Abu Dhabi and we will review these again for the benefit of the entire group. Both are examples to facilitate discussions for defining the finite list of identifiers to receive reservation protections as per the GNSO Council resolution and to also develop a formula for future changes as new National Societies are created by the IFRC. Attachments: 1. rcrc_list_example.pdf - As noted in a prior email, this was created by staff to provide a template of what the final output should look like for the finite list of identifiers. It in no way presupposes the final determinations of this group. This is based on principles from lessons learned in implementing reservation protections for those recommendations that were approved by the Board. The principles are that the definitive list be Reconcilable, Validated, and Free from Errors: a. Reconcilable - meaning that we clearly can articulate the 190 National Society names and their respective identifiers to be protected. The rationale for this principle is that in implementing the identifiers currently temporarily protected as a result of the Board resolution back in 2015, it was difficult for staff to determine whether the temporary list matched that of the recommendation as adopted by the GNSO Council. b. Validated - meaning that the definitive list is presented in a way to easily determine that variants of official identifiers meet the criteria of the reconvened group's recommendation (to be determined based on the continued deliberations). In implementing the temporary list, especially for those Society names that only contained non-Latin identifiers, they could not be matched back as being a part of one of the 189 (at the time) Societies identified per the WG's original recommendation. c. Free from Errors - as a part of the first two principles, that the listed identifiers are correct in their formal and usual names, especially those where non-Latin identifiers are concerned. In implementing the temporary reservation list, staff was later alerted to a few errors detected by Registry Operators. For example, the Russian National Society name, based on the list provided to staff, contained an error, where the generic work of "society" was reserved and not the formal or usual name of the National Society. 2. ICANN mock-ups 4 December 2017.pdf - This is an example provided by the representatives of the Red Cross. This is useful to help determine what the exact definitive list could be including asked for variants of usual names as based from formal names of the National Societies. It will also facilitate the development of a formula for when future National Societies are created by the IFRC and added to the reservation list. This formula is critical, especially for ICANN, as to avoid misinterpretations as to whether the new identifiers meet the exact criteria of the policy recommendations from this group. Session Notes from Abu Dhabi: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-October/000104.html Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Review final output example and mock-up example (attached PDFs) (2) Discuss possible variants and formula to determine a finite list of identifiers that will receive protection and formulate principles to define the policy (3) Discuss next steps and possible timeline for completion of this effort Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
Hi All, Thanks to Chuck, I made one small error in the variant categorization. The use of "society" is not a definite article, and I've added a 5th variant element. I've noted the correction below in RED. Thank you. B Berry Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: Gnso-igo-ingo [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 05:30 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC Hi All, My apologies for the delay in sending the notes of our meeting on the 14th of December. Per the agenda below, staff reviewed the deliverable example with the WG for the eventual finite list of International Federation & National Society names to be reserved. As noted below, this is only to assist the WG to create a finite list of identifiers that can be validated, reconciled and free from errors when it eventually becomes implemented by ICANN staff (subject to GNSO Council and Board approval). Stephane then took the WG through the three examples he and his team first provided in Abu Dhabi and later sent to the mailing list. The intent of this example was to show relevance on the variations of formal National Society Names and the use of "Common or Usual" names. As noted on the mailing list from the IFRC General Counsel, National Societies are legal entities created under national law and thus their formal name. They are latter on admitted as a member to the IFRC. The use of the "Common or Usual" name is left to the National Society itself and thus the requirement to collaborate with the 190 National Societies to fully understand their common or usual use. In short, this led the WG to focus around four elements that can make up the variations of the formal and common use names. Do note, that no decisions were made on this call. Variant attributes: 1. Formal/Official name vs. "common or usual" name - the formal name will be supplied by the IFRC and acts as the foundation for a reconcilable list and collaboration is required with each National Society to understand the common or usual name(s). a. ACTION: WG to define either common or usual name for purposes of documenting its use in the WG's recommendation report. 2. Definite Articles ("the") - the use of definite articles is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 3. "Society" - the use of "society" is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 4. Language (English + Official Language(s)) - there was discussion about official language(s) as supplied from GAC advice versus "national language" as determined from the original WG's recommendation. This WG discussed that there was not much deliberation on languages other than English and that the original WG's intent was to match GAC advice on the use of "Official Language(s)" and likely a mistake to document national language. Thus, a few National Societies might have more than one official language. The important element is that each language is properly identified and can be traced backed to the English name of the respective National Society for reconciliation purposes. 5. Country Designation - this is also a variant form to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. Again, no decisions were made on this call. This is a working draft of elements that can form likely variants from the formal National Society names. Another aspect that was discussed is how are common or usual names can be confirmed. How can this WG confirm the validity of submissions from National Societies for the definitive list? What are safeguards? Who validates use? How does the formula/ruleset prevent the creation of new common names? Possible forms of validation could be: . Use on website . mailing list . campaigns . vehicles . uniforms . logos Stephane reinforced that the intent of identifying the most commonly used variants by National Societies is not to develop an open ended list, but a list that contains only the most important variants. Therefore, collaboration with each National Society will be crucial is developing the finite list for reservation. After the example as explained below in further detail, validation may not be required. Also of note, staff provided an update from one portion of the IRT implementing the recommendations that did not conflict with GAC advice and adopted by the Board. There, a procedure is being implemented to handle adds/deletes to the Spec 5 reservation list once the policy effective date has been established. The prior version only had the GAC informing ICANN Org of any changes to RCRC, IOC and IGO full names. Based on community input, the procedure now includes the GNSO being advised of any proposed changes and it will allow sufficient time to either confirm or express concerns with the proposed change prior to implementation. It is expected that this procedure will be used for the RC National Society names under discussion with this WG as well once it is passed to the IRT for implementation. And finally... Next Steps: Staff will work with the RCRC representative to develop an integrated example of identifiers of 5 to 10 National Societies that will form the basis of the finite list which is this group's primary deliverable. The intent is to merge the variant suggestions provided by Stephane with the template supplied by staff and better understand the possible variants from the four elements defined above. Should the WG approve the four elements and that the 5 to 10 examples meet the WG's criteria, then Stephane and his team will work with the remaining 180 or so National Societies to develop the final finite list of identifiers. At this point, we do not know how long it will take to compile the example of 5 to 10 National Societies. We hope to first populate the 5 to 10 with National Society identifiers that have already been supplied by Stephane's example and what exists on the Specification 5 list today. This will then be used to collaborate with the 5 to 10 National Societies and validate the variation of identifiers. For now, we are targeting end of January 2018 for the WG to reconvene, but it could be early February. After collaboration on our working example, I will communicate back to this group with a proposed date for the WG to meet again. In the meantime, I invite WG members who were not on the call to listen to the recording (https://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/2017-12-14+IGO+INGO+PDP+Working+ Group+on+Red+Cross+names). Should you have questions, please send them to the list. Thank you for your time. B Berry Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: Gnso-igo-ingo [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 09:03 To: gnso-igo-ingo@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call (scheduled for Wednesday 14 December at 18:00 UTC). As a part of the agenda review, please also review the attached files from the representatives of the Red Cross and staff. These were discussed at the informal session in Abu Dhabi and we will review these again for the benefit of the entire group. Both are examples to facilitate discussions for defining the finite list of identifiers to receive reservation protections as per the GNSO Council resolution and to also develop a formula for future changes as new National Societies are created by the IFRC. Attachments: 1. rcrc_list_example.pdf - As noted in a prior email, this was created by staff to provide a template of what the final output should look like for the finite list of identifiers. It in no way presupposes the final determinations of this group. This is based on principles from lessons learned in implementing reservation protections for those recommendations that were approved by the Board. The principles are that the definitive list be Reconcilable, Validated, and Free from Errors: a. Reconcilable - meaning that we clearly can articulate the 190 National Society names and their respective identifiers to be protected. The rationale for this principle is that in implementing the identifiers currently temporarily protected as a result of the Board resolution back in 2015, it was difficult for staff to determine whether the temporary list matched that of the recommendation as adopted by the GNSO Council. b. Validated - meaning that the definitive list is presented in a way to easily determine that variants of official identifiers meet the criteria of the reconvened group's recommendation (to be determined based on the continued deliberations). In implementing the temporary list, especially for those Society names that only contained non-Latin identifiers, they could not be matched back as being a part of one of the 189 (at the time) Societies identified per the WG's original recommendation. c. Free from Errors - as a part of the first two principles, that the listed identifiers are correct in their formal and usual names, especially those where non-Latin identifiers are concerned. In implementing the temporary reservation list, staff was later alerted to a few errors detected by Registry Operators. For example, the Russian National Society name, based on the list provided to staff, contained an error, where the generic work of "society" was reserved and not the formal or usual name of the National Society. 2. ICANN mock-ups 4 December 2017.pdf - This is an example provided by the representatives of the Red Cross. This is useful to help determine what the exact definitive list could be including asked for variants of usual names as based from formal names of the National Societies. It will also facilitate the development of a formula for when future National Societies are created by the IFRC and added to the reservation list. This formula is critical, especially for ICANN, as to avoid misinterpretations as to whether the new identifiers meet the exact criteria of the policy recommendations from this group. Session Notes from Abu Dhabi: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-October/000104.html Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Review final output example and mock-up example (attached PDFs) (2) Discuss possible variants and formula to determine a finite list of identifiers that will receive protection and formulate principles to define the policy (3) Discuss next steps and possible timeline for completion of this effort Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail@berrycobb.com @berrycobb
participants (1)
-
Berry Cobb