ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-contro-wg] Work items - Overview

  • To: Controversial TLDs <gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-contro-wg] Work items - Overview
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 00:44:11 -0400


At the controversial names sub group meeting, several issue/work items came up. These need to be discussed on the list. I will initiate a thread for each of the items.

The issues relate to the recommendation in the RN report:

1. Propose creating a category called Controversial
Names for use at the top level only. A label that
is applied for would be considered Controversial
if during the Public Comment phase of the new
gTLD application process the label becomes
disputed by a formal notice of a consensus
position from an ICANN Advisory Committee or
ICANN Supporting Organization, and otherwise
meets the definition of Controversial Names as
defined above.

1. Is a dispute by a non ICANN body allowed? If so, are there any constraints involved? Is the process the same as for an ICANN AC.

2. How is a non consensus issue that is brought up by an AC, e.g. the GAC, to be handled? this relates to the GAc principles on new gTLDs, specifically:

3.3 If individual GAC members or other governments express formal concerns about any issues related to the new gTLDs, the ICANN board should fully consider those concerns and clearly explain how it will address them

Is it sufficient for such disputes to be handled only at the ICANN board level or should the dispute process be open to individual governments? Is is appropriate for the GSNOS policy to determine that a GAC decsion needs to be by consensus?

One issue related to the process handling a dispute:

2. a. In the event of such dispute, applications for
that label would be placed in a HOLD status that
would allow for the dispute to be further
examined. If the dispute is dismissed or
otherwise resolved favorably, the applications
would reenter the processing queue. The period
of time allowed for dispute should be finite and
should be relegated to a, yet to be defined,
external dispute resolution process. The external
dispute process should be defined to be
objective, neutral, and transparent.  The
outcome of any dispute should not result in the
development of new categories of Reserved

3. In the case of an IDN, how is the language community brought in? what sort of experts other then language experts are needed?

Note: this may be a special case of a dispute process. Marilyn and Tamara are working on a proposal for a dispute process derived from the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy