We had a very short conversation about that, and I would agree with
was my initial view that the 'controversial name objection' needed
to be a
process that incorporated other sources, although then the question
be addressed of who would have standing, e.g. one person, versus a
range of parties, etc.
From: owner-gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-contro-
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
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?
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:
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
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.
<RN-WG Controversial Names Subgroup Reports - working draft