[ALAC] Fwd: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC

[Alan Greenberg]

>To: IGO INGO <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 
>September, 23.59 UTC
>
>Attached is my position on the Consensus Call issues.
>
>The positions have been agreed to by those on the ALAC who have been 
>most closely following the issue, and I have received no 
>disagreements from others, but this has not been subjected to a 
>formal ratification of the ALAC. If such a vote were taken, my 
>expectation is that it would pass.
>
>If a two cases, I indicated support, but only if certain other 
>conditions were met. Specifically:
>
>- We support fee waivers or reduced pricing for the TMCH, but NOT if 
>they are paid for by other TMCH users. Subsidy by ICANN, the only 
>expected alternative, is acceptable.
>- We support a permanent claims notice, but only if it is available 
>for Trademarks as well. To implement it just for IGO-INGOs does not 
>seem reasonable.
>
>We will leave it up to Thomas and Berry or the WG to decide whether 
>these map into Support or No Support.
>
>In a few cases, we felt that an explanation is necessary and 
>included it. It does not alter the answer.
>
>In many cases, we answered "Can live with". This can be treated as 
>"Support", but we felt it was necessary to reiterate that we either feel that:
>- the protection is not needed or
>- we do not actively support this but it will do little actual harm 
>and we will not object.
>
>Alan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag-final.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 71680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20130903/f54f584c/IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-ag-final.doc>