ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-contro-wg]


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

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

  • To: Controversial TLDs <gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 08:53:31 -0400

Hi,

I am not trying to say that the subgroup cannot suggest changes to the the items supported under RN1. But I do believe that these recommendations form a default that we need reasons to move away from. If we decide to include a recommendation that alters one of RN1's recommendations, then we need to determine whether that new recommendation has subgroup support or minority support.

I request that anyone who believes that a dispute should be possible from groups or individuals other then SOs and ACs suggest a method for determining the means by which these entities can be determined to have standing. Then as a group we can determine whether the RN1 based recommendation or the new recommendation is the one with strong support.


Personally: I am comfortable with the recommendation made by RN1 in this respect.


a.


On 2 maj 2007, at 08.16, Marilyn Cade wrote:

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>








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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy