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

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

I fined these messages that insinuate I am or have been unfair to be
inappropriate, unjustified, and rude.  I  have gone out of my way to be
extremely and equally fair to everyone. 


________________________________

        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:05 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
        
        
        1. Nor is it fair to discount anyone else's. I think it's
important to have a record of who supported what if at all possible, as
has been the case in other WGs.
         
        2. We're all volunteers. We all have a lot on our plates outside
of this WG. However, if anyone has comments they would like included
they can get them to me and I will coordinate with Liz. Is that
acceptable?
         
        3. I think that a complete report of all views is more important
than hitting a deadline precisely on target. Liz, is there room for
fudge on the timing of the submission of the final report? Or will the
Council not accept it after a certain date and time?

         
        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
                From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
                Date: Thu, May 17, 2007 12:42 pm
                To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
                Cc: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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.
                 
                K 


________________________________

                        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
comments.
                         
                        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.
                         
                        PRINCIPLES:
                         
                        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).
                        

                        Tim 
                        



                                -------- 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>
                                
                                
                                All, 
                                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.
                                Kristina 


                                <<05162007 PRO WG Proposals Chart.DOC>>