<<<
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.
Chuck
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!
Cheers
Mary
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>)"
<berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:berry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>)"
<gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Need for clarification
Berry,
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.
Chuck
"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
>>>
|