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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Getting to what gives a group or an individual 'standing' is indeed a
challenge. That will be in the category of 'more work needed'. However, not
everyone is a member of a SO constituency, and I am not clear that creating
constituencies is the solution. 

Perhaps we need to think more about what makes up a 'controversy' and then
address how other entities would get 'standing'. But I also don't want to
put the GNSO Council into the middle of making the determination. That
doesn't sound like what councilors are elected to do. :-) 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-contro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 8:54 AM
To: Controversial TLDs
Subject: Re: [gnso-contro-wg] rev 01. of the controversial names report

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>
>>
>
>
>