RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart: dates for report

["Smith, Kelly W" <kelly.w.smith@xxxxxxxxx>]

Liz,

Sorry but I'm unclear.  Did we bottom out on having each WG member post
his/her agreement/non-agreement to each proposal, as Tim did?

Kelly 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: May 18, 2007 4:35 AM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart: dates for report

Tim

Yes, of course as I can see that this work has caused some concern  
for some people.

Let's make a best efforts to COMPLETE any amendments today and I will  
then take over the report to finalise it for next week.

I would be able to distribute the final version mid next week?

I will proceed in this way unless I hear violent objections OR  
someone else volunteers to write the report.

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 20:35, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Not implying any such thing. You stated what you thought was fair,  
> I simply responded with my views.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Proposals Chart
> From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, May 17, 2007 1:08 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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>>