ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart

  • To: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:34:48 -0700

My support, or non-support for&nbsp;principles 1-28 with comments are
noted below. I am still trying to redraft the principles I submitted, but looks 
like I am running up against a time constraint - so we'll see. I however 
believe three things are imporant for the final report:</div>
1. The principles table should not merely say Agreement, Support, etc.
It should explicitly&nbsp;state exactly who supports each principle and who 
does not -either directly&nbsp;in the table or in a reference later. Without 
that visibility it will be impossible to determine the accuracy of the stated 
support, even from among ourselves.</div>
2. Every effort should be made to include all view points and comments
made regarding the pricinples. Of course, those should be submitted in a form 
easy to append in an annex to the report without major rewrites. For example, 
cut and pasting my list below into the annex. Others should take that into 
consideration if submitting comments.</div>
3. Given that time is&nbsp;evidently slipping away, and one or more of
us may be pushing the window to submit a minority report. Those should be 
written so they can be easily copied into an annex. And&nbsp;I would expect 
that every effort would be made to have such reports or 
1. I do not support - I would support if MUST was changed to
2. I do not support - I would support if MUST was changed to
MAY<BR>3. I support<BR>
4. I do not support - This *principle* is not needed at all. It implies
RPM mechanisms should be required.<BR>
5. I do not support - I would support if changed to read "If a new gTLD
chooses to use a RPM it SHOULD..."<BR>6. I support<BR>
7. I do not support - Fees charged should be at the sole discretion of
the gTLD registry.<BR>8. Deleted.<BR>9. I do not support. I would need more 
time to consider.<BR>10. I do not support. I would need more time to 
consider.<BR>11(all). I support.<BR>12. I support. It assumes only <BR>
13. I do not support. It appears to assume only holders of trademarks or
other IP have prior legal rights.<BR>
14. I do not support. There is little history to base this on. Accepting
it as a principle is premature.<BR>15. I support.<BR>
16. I do not support. I don't think it is implementable as written.
Needs further legal review and consideration before it could be accepted as a 
17. I support but strongly recommend that this be reviewed by applicable
IDN experts.<BR>18. I support.<BR>
19. I do not support. Use of RPMs should be at the sole discretion of
the gTLD operator.<BR>20. I support.<BR>21. I support.<BR>22. I support.<BR>23. 
I support.<BR>24. I support.<BR>25. I support.<BR>
26. I do not support. Fees should be at the sole discretion of the gTLD
27. I support, although it should say gTLD operator. If there's time
language from the RN-WG might make this clearer. Sorry I don't have time to do 
that myself.<BR>
28. I do not support. I think there may be merit to this concept, but I
believe it should be the subject of an independent WG of affected and 
interested parties (preferrably not a PDP).<BR></div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] 
Current Proposals Chart<BR>From: "Rosette, Kristina" 
&lt;krosette@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Wed, May 16, 2007 4:20 pm<BR>To: 
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>All,</FONT> </div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Attached is a chart that contains all of the principles proposed to
date.&nbsp; (Please check to make sure any you posted were included.) To the 
extent we have previously discussed them and agreed upon a level of support 
that is noted.&nbsp; I added numbers for the sole purpose of making it easier 
to refer to them on the list.&nbsp; The numbers are not intended to indicate 
any ranking.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>
According to my notes, the following proposals have not been
discussed:&nbsp; 9, 16-17 (we discussed 18 &amp; 19 during our call), 
20-28.&nbsp; Also according to my notes, Tim and Victoria planned to draft and 
circulate new versions of 20-25.&nbsp; </FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>
If you wish to comment, further discuss, propose revisions, please
do.&nbsp; It would be ideal if we could reach further consensus by 
list.&nbsp;&nbsp; Before I leave the office this evening, I will post a current 
draft of the report for review and comment.</FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>
Also, I will be unavailable from 5 PM (EDT) tomorrow through Wednesday
morning.&nbsp;&nbsp; The report will be submitted by 5 PM EDT tomorrow in 
whatever form it's in at that time.</FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kristina</FONT> </div><BR><BR>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>&lt;&lt;05162007 PRO WG Proposals 
Chart.DOC&gt;&gt; </FONT></div></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy