Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This is what was agreed to in the first instantiation of the RN group.

A few things:

- the text discusses this
- i agree with this
- i don't know if the group agrees with this, but there have been  
neither arguments against this nor suggestions on how this would be  
done otherwise.

As  discussed in rev 0.1, all disputes on controversial names would  
come filtered either through the Advisory Committee or the Supporting  
Organizations.  Instead of a free for all where ICANN needs to decide  
who has standing for a disipute, each of the stakeholder communities  
would make a dispute on its claim of a controversial name through its  
representatives in the organization.

thanks
a.


On 2 maj 2007, at 05.41, Liz Williams wrote:

> Hi Avri
>
> Thanks for this -- a question though.
>
> In the text you've limited the creation of a controversial name  
> objection to ICANN supporting organisations.  Is that what the  
> group actually intends?  If so, then another parallel process would  
> need to be developed to handle "controversy" from other sources.
>
> Perhaps some further discussion would be helpful?
>
> Liz
> .....................................................
>
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob
>
>
>
>
> On 02 May 2007, at 07:38, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > I have taken a crack at a first revision of our report.
> >
> > Given the paucity of conversation on this list since our first  
> > meeting (i know we have all been very busy in the other  
> > subgroups), i have taken it upon myself to extrapolate for our  
> > first conversation.
> >
> > In doing so, i freely admit i may have miss represented positions  
> > or not understood people's positions.  But since we need a straw  
> > proposal to start throwing slings and arrows at, here it is.
> >
> > I will continue editing it based on any comments and new content i  
> > get today (Wednesday).  To meet the rules of the game as set by  
> > Chuck, i need to send a copy of this to the RN2 group on lagical  
> > Wednesday evening - even though we don't have our next meeting  
> > until Thursday 1500 UTC.  When I do so, i will indicate that the  
> > subgroup only had a limited amount of time on the mailing list to  
> > discuss it and that i will be sending an update after our meeting  
> > on Thursday morning.
> >
> > thanks
> > a.
> >
> > <RN-WG Controversial Names Subgroup Reports - working draft  
> > rev01.doc>