RE: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations

["Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ross et al,
My reading of this is that the overarching distinction is between generic
TLDs and country code TLDs - hence the split of DNSO once upon a time into
GNSO and ccNSO. Generic TLDs can in turn be sorted in the following subsets;
sponsored, unsponsored, restricted and unrestricted (which can be combined
in a 2x2 matrix - well, in principle at least). 
So, I think it's right to keep it simple and refer to generic TLDs, unless
we wish to carve out a subset from the application. That was done in the
transfers policy, where it was explicitly stated that it should not apply to
sponsored TLDs.
Just my 2 Eurocents
Regards
Olof


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:34 PM
To: Marilyn Cade
Cc: 'Maria Farrell'; 'Whois TF mailing list'
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

We should probably pick this up w/in council. My personal preference is
to keep it simple and only refer to generic top level domains.

On 30/08/2005 3:25 PM Marilyn Cade noted that;
> I like it! And by relying on the bylaws we are in good space except for
one
> thing. :-) The 'sponsored TLDS' are still in the g space. but not
specified
> in the bylaws. We all know/and operate accordingly, that they are
"generics"
> but with a special "sponsorship". 
> 
>  
> 
> Should we say.. e.g. sTLDs and gTLDs?
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dow123@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Maria Farrell
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 3:18 PM
> To: 'Whois TF mailing list'
> Subject: [gnso-dow123] Suggested standard text on policy recommendations
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> On today's WHOIS task force call, it was agreed to develop some text that
> makes it clear that the recommendation on national laws refers only to the
> gTLD space. Also, task force members wanted this to be a standardised text
> that can be put in all task force reports to make it clear to all readers
> that the work of the GNSO is limited to the gTLD space. 
> 
>  
> 
> Here is a suggestion I've drafted, drawing on the bylaws:
> 
>  
> 
> "Article X, Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws
> (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X ) states "the Generic Names
> Supporting Organization (GNSO), (which) shall be responsible for
developing
> and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to
generic
> top-level domains. This preliminary task force report and the consensus
> policy recommendation therein refers only to the generic top level domain
> space. "
> 
>  
> 
> Comments and suggestions gratefully received.
> 
>  
> 
> If and when we have a final version of this standardised text, I'd suggest
> forwarding it on to the GNSO Council so that we can have a full agreement
to
> start adding the text to all task force reports that come through the PDP.

> 
>  
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 


- --






                      -rwr



Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
Skydasher: A great way to start your day
My weblog: http://www.byte.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)

iD8DBQFDFLSP6sL06XjirooRAih1AJ4vTreVh8g21cT4GpUUf2X+/tuSkACfXnQh
PKspilijLtG1P16G4ABiEvY=
=LJU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----