ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

[gnso-contro-wg] Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report

  • To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-contro-wg] Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:45:10 -0400


I am going out for several hours now, but can look at it when i get back. I take you have decided that it is better to weave those recommendations back in as opposed to just leaving them in.

As for the 2nd and 3rd level that was decided the last time, and as far as i know not even in the SOW for this time. As I remember there was a recommendation then that there were no CN considerations being recommend for 2nd level and beyond.


On 9 maj 2007, at 10.39, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


Would you suggest a way of presenting the recommendations to deal with
this ASAP and then I will do a full review of the report. It is also
important to add in the other recommendations for 2nd and 3rd level from
the original report. Because you do not use Word, if it is easier I can
do that.

Chuck Gomes

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:33 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: GNSO RN WG; Controversial TLDs
Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Controversial Names Subgroup report
Importance: High


Thank you for normalizing the look and feel of the report.

Re the issue of removing the old recommendations.

For the most part, the content is included in the new
recommendations.  I am not sure, however, that _all_ of the
aspects are covered, and thus we may need to retain the
original proposals or we may need to add the content into the
current recommendation set.

The subgroup did, however, pretty much use those
recommendations, having been supported originally but
requiring more work, as the agreed upon base for the new
recommendations.  Where we did make changes, e.g. the move
away from requiring full consensus decisions from the ACs,
those were explicit decisions and were discussed in the
background section of the document


On 9 maj 2007, at 08.57, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

<Subgroup Report for Controversial Names with Gomes edits 8 May.doc>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy