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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

We had a very short conversation about that, and I would agree with Liz/ it
was my initial view that the 'controversial name objection' needed to be a
process that incorporated other sources, although then the question has to
be addressed of who would have standing, e.g. one person, versus a broad
range of parties, etc. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:42 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Controversial TLDs
Subject: Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report

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>
>