From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri 9 Mar 2007 12:22:05 GMT+01:00
To: GNSO RN WG <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RN-WG Questions: Report detail
Colleagues
I have read through all the reports that have been submitted so far
-- thank you to all the hardworking volunteers for the work. This
is a long email -- individual readers may wish to just jump
directly to the report that involves them. However, I would
appreciate the thoughts of the group on how to move things forward
-- I apologise in advance if I've posed self-evident questions but
I would prefer to confirm with the working group rather than make
incorrect assumptions.
I talked to Chuck yesterday and formed some thoughts which need
further examination. These questions are in no particular order --
I have just gone through each report as it's filed in my folder.
Report regarding single and dual character domains
Section 1a. p3 on "expert consultation is desired re IDNs and re
symbols due to stability and security concerns at both top and
second level". Is it the group's intention to proceed with seeking
this external advice? If so, when and from whom does the Group
expect the responses. Is this a question that you will immediately
give to the IDN WG?
Recommendation 1 Section 1d. p4. "We recommend that this [the new
registry services funnel] release mechanism be permitted as to one
and two letter and or number ASCII names..." Just confirming that
the group is referring to an allocation method for existing
registries. How does the group propose to resolve contention
between applicants for one and two letter/number names? Through
the existing UDRP process or through another process consistent
with the new TLDs process for resolving contention?
A note that this proposal has a direct bearing on existing registry
contracts and that further detailed discussion may be necessary
with all the members of the Registry Constituency [I didn't see
this potential work item in the list of further things to do]
Recommendation 2 Section 1d. p4 "We recommend that single letter
or number TLDs be allowed in future rounds, via the process to be
agreed via PDP05". Just confirming the group's recommendation
means that the treatment of applications for single letter and
single number TLD strings will be treated in exactly the same way
as any other new TLD application AND that any "string contention
and allocation methods" would be the same.
Report regarding tagged names
No comment with regard to recommendation BUT the recommendation
needs to come in a form for the new TLDs report that spells out
each of the recommendations in clear language (using, where
appropriate should, must, may] for each of the recommendations.
Please ensure that the text is as you wish to have it because it
can then be included in the new TLDs report section that relates to
IDNs and the technical conditions associated with IDNs.
Report regarding geographic and geopolitical terms
There seems to be no recommendation that could be included in the
new TLDs report. However, it is clear that further discussion is
necessary with GAC members and others. The group should specify in
what form it would like to receive advice from the GAC, recognising
the different work styles and timeframes between the GNSO and the
GAC. It is likely that this topic will come up for discussion in
the joint GNSO GAC Lisbon session.
Report regarding other names reserved at the second level
Section 3. Straw recommendation to the entire WG
This recommendation relates to existing registries rather than new
TLDs? Does it pre-suppose that registries would work together on
releasing pairs of names -- is any further work required from the
Registry Constituency? With respect to new TLDs, can a version of
this recommendation be included in the new TLDs report?
Registry Specific Names: Is the group suggesting that existing
registries should be subject to "defensive registrations" and have
to go through a UDRP to have a name returned if it were registered
by someone else? This recommendation needs further discussion
within the PRO group and within the RyC constituency. I will send
it to Kristina Rosette for inclusion in the next PRO meeting.
Other Names Reserved at the Second Level: The proposed
recommendation has a direct bearing on several elements of the new
TLDs process. 1) on selection criteria which depend on a
"sponsored" model. There is no specificity in the existing new
TLDs draft recommendations that pre-supposes that a sponsored model
would continue in future rounds. Is the group recommending that it
should? 2) on allocation methods and resolving contention between
competing applicants for a "sponsored" community which requires
objective criteria to resolve contention between applicants and 3)
on the base contract and contractual conditions. The point of the
base contract is to provide a smooth process for having a new
registry operator get under way. The proposed recommendation
leaves open a process of contract negotiations which may be lengthy
and which would be subject to public comment periods.
From Tamara's comments, this is clearly what the group intends but
it does have a bearing not only on the new TLDs report but also the
implementation plan and application process.
Report on ICANN & IANA Names
Is this recommendation in a state that could be put into the new
TLDs report? If so, it helps with setting up the formalised
section on Reserved Names and also passes through to the
implementation plan on "instructions to applicants" about what
names to NOT apply for in their applications.
Report on nic, www and whois for registry operations
See section above.
Report on Controversial Names
Recommendation 3.1 & 3.2: My sense is that these recommendations
need further discussion. The creation of reserved lists of
controversial names excites the interests of many parties and we
need further discussion on three elements -- any final policy
recommendation, discussion of this with GAC members in the context
of their final public policy principles and in the context of the
implementation plan.
Could the group please suggest HOW they would like this further
work done -- some suggestions include discussion with the GAC
members at the GNSO GAC meeting in Lisbon and with ccTLD operators
as part of the ccNSO discussions. On the latter, the ccNSO has a
very full agenda for Lisbon but I do think some email
correspondence could be sent to the ccNSO chair.
Report on reservation of third level names.
No comments on recommendation but is it ready to be inserted into a
report to the Committee? Has there been sufficient discussion to
warrant that inclusion -- it has a direct bearing on elements of a
base contract.
Apologies for long email -- of course questions and comments always
welcome.
Liz
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob