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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim

Thanks for setting this out.  A couple of thoughts -- from my side,  
given the lack of agreement on many areas it would be very helpful  
for me to be able to see who supports what.  That was done, as a  
point of reference, in the policies for contractual conditions PDP.

I haven't noticed any work from the ISP constituency -- despite  
Kristina's repeated efforts --and that will have to be recorded in  
the report.

Remember that this is for the GNSO Committee to read and consider and  
some of those people haven't been involved in this discussion at all.

Kind regards and thanks for trying to simplify the reporting.

Liz
.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 17 May 2007, at 19:34, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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>>