[gnso-pro-wg] 9 April Call Summary, Action Item List, and Additional Call Scheduled

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

All,

Set forth below is a short summary of today's call.

1.  Peter provided a high-level description of his proposal, which is
summarized in the RPM chart I circulated earlier today.  I provided a
summary of a variation on the "Watch Service" proposal, focusing on the
differences between it and Peter's corresponding proposal.  Among the
comments were (a) clarification that a challenge to a defensive removal
could be raised; (b) a question of why the watch service did not
anticipate a corresponding domain name registration application by the
rights owner challenging the registration; (c) a question of, in the
context of a watch service, what happens to the "challenged" domain name
if the rights owner challenge is successful and whether it was possible
to prevent the same applicant from seeking to register the name again.

2.  I provided a summary of the centralized validation process and
database proposal.  The primary concern articulated was that having only
one processor/database administrator raised competition concerns.  There
was some discussion about the feasibility of having multiple providers
and whether the "provider-shopping" incentives that may be implicated in
UDRP proceedings were implicated here.  Based on the discussion, it
appears that there is rough consensus that such a proposal is acceptable
as long as competition-related issues can be addressed.   

3.  We discussed the expected content and structure of the final report.
Liz provided guidance as to the particular components generated thus far
and those expected.  Attached for your reference is a copy of the IDN WG
final report.  

4.  To facilitate a list of proposals/recommendations/practices for
final discussion, we agreed that each WG member should post a list of
those RPM proposals/recommendations/practices that the respective member
believes are most important.   All lists are due by the close of
business (varying on each WG member's location) on Friday, 11 May.
The lists will be consolidated and circulated for discussion.  

5.  I propose that we use the same conventions used by the IDN WG for
characterizing proposals/recommendations/practices.  The conventions
appear on page 5 of the report, but I copy them below for convenience.
If you disagree with this proposal, please provide an alternative
convention structure.

For the expression of views, the Working Group agreed on the following
conventions: 
-       Agreement -  there is broad agreement within the Working Group
(largely equivalent to "rough consensus" as used in the IETF)
-       Support -  there is some gathering of positive opinion, but
competing positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached
-       Alternative view - a differing opinion that has been expressed,
without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion of
either Support or Agreement.

6.  Margie agreed to draft and circulate definitions of key terms.  We
designated the following terms for definition:  IP Claim, Sunrise,
Validation.  (If I've missed any, please post them.)  If you believe
there are additional terms for which definitions are required, please
post the terms and your proposed definitions.  

7.  We have scheduled another call before our final 16 April meeting.
It is scheduled for Monday, 14 May.  The time is unchanged. The
objective is to discuss the report in its then-draft form, with the
intention of discussing and finalizing the report on the 16th.  If you
cannot participate in the call on Monday, please be certain to post your
comments and views to the list by the scheduled time of the call so we
can discuss them.  

-*-

If I've missed anything, please feel free to post.  

Kristina 



 <<GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report.DOC>>

Attachment: GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report.DOC
Description: GNSO IDN WG Final Outcomes Report.DOC