ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 13:42:48 -0400

Thanks for taking the time to post these.  Having said that, 
1.  It's too late for us to try to impose this requirement.   The time
to have suggested them was when I first posted the support conventions
last week.  There are people who were on our call Monday who can't be
participating today and it's not fair to them to discount their views
and participation.
2.  Great idea.  I presume that you will take ownership of it or find
others who will.  I've got enough on my plate, thanks.
3.  Excellent idea.  Minority reports are due today, too.


        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:35 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
        My support, or non-support for 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:
        1. The principles table should not merely say Agreement,
Support, etc. It should explicitly state exactly who supports each
principle and who does not -either directly 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.
        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
        3. Given that time is 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 I
would expect that every effort would be made to have such reports or
comments included.
        1. I do not support - I would support if MUST was changed to MAY
        2. I do not support - I would support if MUST was changed to MAY
        3. I support
        4. I do not support - This *principle* is not needed at all. It
implies RPM mechanisms should be required.
        5. I do not support - I would support if changed to read "If a
new gTLD chooses to use a RPM it SHOULD..."
        6. I support
        7. I do not support - Fees charged should be at the sole
discretion of the gTLD registry.
        8. Deleted.
        9. I do not support. I would need more time to consider.
        10. I do not support. I would need more time to consider.
        11(all). I support.
        12. I support. It assumes only 
        13. I do not support. It appears to assume only holders of
trademarks or other IP have prior legal rights.
        14. I do not support. There is little history to base this on.
Accepting it as a principle is premature.
        15. I support.
        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 principle.
        17. I support but strongly recommend that this be reviewed by
applicable IDN experts.
        18. I support.
        19. I do not support. Use of RPMs should be at the sole
discretion of the gTLD operator.
        20. I support.
        21. I support.
        22. I support.
        23. I support.
        24. I support.
        25. I support.
        26. I do not support. Fees should be at the sole discretion of
the gTLD operator.
        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.
        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).


                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
                From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
                Date: Wed, May 16, 2007 4:20 pm
                To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                Attached is a chart that contains all of the principles
proposed to date.  (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.  I added numbers for the sole
purpose of making it easier to refer to them on the list.  The numbers
are not intended to indicate any ranking.    
                According to my notes, the following proposals have not
been discussed:  9, 16-17 (we discussed 18 & 19 during our call), 20-28.
Also according to my notes, Tim and Victoria planned to draft and
circulate new versions of 20-25.  
                If you wish to comment, further discuss, propose
revisions, please do.  It would be ideal if we could reach further
consensus by list.   Before I leave the office this evening, I will post
a current draft of the report for review and comment.
                Also, I will be unavailable from 5 PM (EDT) tomorrow
through Wednesday morning.   The report will be submitted by 5 PM EDT
tomorrow in whatever form it's in at that time.

                <<05162007 PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC>> 

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy