ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Need for clarification

  • To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Berry Cobb (berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Need for clarification
  • From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 04:42:39 +0000

I am okay with what you did on Resolve clause 4 and made a suggestion already 
with regard to the exception procedure.  Up until the new gTLD process 
consensus policies only applied to incumbent registries.  As such, the registry 
operators were required to implement the new policies and given reasonable time 
to do so.  In the case of our recommendations, the list of reserved names will 
have to be revised so we could say that if you think it is helpful but that is 
really an implementation issue that can be dealt with going forward if the 
recommendations become consensus policy.


From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 9:06 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Berry Cobb (berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Cc: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx)
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Need for clarification

Hi Chuck, we were hoping that you and others with more experience with Registry 
Agreements could look particularly at Resolved clause 4 of the proposed draft 
motion, which deals with the notion of applying the relevant Consensus 
recommendations to incumbent/existing registries. While we have some 
placeholder language there about how these Agreements ought to accommodate the 
new recommendations, we are not certain if we should go into greater detail as 
to how this ought to be done; e.g. A new contractual condition, modifying 
existing Reserved Names Lists, an advisory applicable to all incumbent 
registries, etc.

Thank you so much!


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>

* One World. One Internet. *

From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 7:20 PM
To: "Berry Cobb (berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)" 
Cc: "GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>)" 
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Need for clarification


I promised toward the end of the WG call today to respond to a question you 
asked me but I need you to repeat it for me.  I thought you wanted me to look 
at Section 4 of the final report but after doing that I don't think that is 
correct.  Section 4 looks fine to me.

"This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender 
immediately and delete this message immediately."

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy