RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz:  My comments to the draft report can be found below in red.
Thanks.  Jon


 


4.2    Areas of Support


Definitions:

Support -  there is some gathering of positive opinion, but competing
positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached

Alternative view - a differing opinion that has been expressed, without
getting enough following within the WG to merit the notion of either
Support or Agreement.

 

4.2.1  

Support for the principle that all new gTLDs MUST provide an RPM.

            Alternative view that all new gTLDs MAY provide an RPM.
[JN:  I'm not sure if we voted on this or not, but I support the
alternative view and question the characterization of "support" of the
use of the word "must" in 4.2.1]

 

4.2.2

Support for the principle that each gTLD applicant MUST describe in its
application (a) the RPM(s) it intends to provide and; and (b) how that
RPM/those RPMs will protect the rights of others. 

            Alternative view that each gTLD applicant MUST describe in
its application (a) the RPM(s) it intends to provide and; and (b) how
that RPM/those RPMs will protect the rights of others and discourage
abusive registrations.

            Alternative view that each gTLD applicant MUST describe in
its application the methods, if any, they will employ to protect the
rights of others.

 

[JN:  I support the last view as edited and question the
characterization of support for this principle.]

 

4.2.3

Support for the principle that if a new gTLD elects to adopt and
implement an RPM that consists of eligibility or membership verification
requirements and second-level name selection criteria (such as those
used by the .museum, .aero, and .travel TLDs), an additional RPM MAY NOT
be necessary.

            Alternative view that if a new gTLD elects to adopt a
description that includes eligibility or membership verification
requirements and second-level name selection criteria (such as those
used by the .museum, .aero, and .travel) TLDs or another similar set of
criteria, a RPM SHALL NOT be necessary.

 

4.2.4

Support for the principle that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise
Process as its RPM and second-level names are not awarded on a
First-Come, First-Served basis, then competing applicants MAY be
provided with an opportunity to reach an allocation decision
between/among themselves.

 

4.2.5

Support for the principle that to the extent a gTLD is intended
for/targeted to a particular geographic region, the Legal Right on which
the owner or claimant bases its participation in the RPM SHOULD
originate from the laws that apply to a country in the region or, in the
case of a gTLD intended for/targeted to a region within a country, the
laws that apply to the region.

 

4.2.6

Support for the creation of "Approved Model  RPMs" (to be developed
later) that SHOULD be available at the registry's sole discretion to
select, which standardizes the RPM  across a registry/registrar to
minimize the costs of implementation, and eliminates the need for ICANN
to scrutinize this aspect of an application during the new TLD process.
A registry applicant that fails to pick an "Approved Model RPM" MUST not
be prejudiced in any way if it elects not to use a "Approved Model PRM"
as this is purely a voluntary standard that is meant to make the launch
of new TLDs more efficient.     The list of Approved Model RPMs MAY be
updated from time to time.

            Alternative view that "Approved Model  RPMs" (to be
developed later) SHOULD be utilized by the new registry, unless there
are reasonable grounds for non-use in the particular registry. Such use
of a standardized, RPMs MAY minimize the costs of implementation for all
interested parties, and would lessen the need for ICANN to scrutinize
this aspect of an application during the new TLD process. The list of
Approved Model RPMs could be updated from time to time.

            Alternative view that the Supported principle is acceptable
subject to the substitution of "and may eliminate the need for ICANN to
scrutinize this aspect of an application during the new TLD process"
for "and eliminates the need for ICANN to scrutinize this aspect of an
application during the new TLD process."

 

[JN:  I support the last alternative view]

 

I am not commenting on 4.3 Outstanding Work -- as that section doesn't
discuss current levels of support.  Similarly, I suggest changing the
numbering of 4.4 and 4.5 to 4.31 and 4.3.2, respectively because both of
these sections are really subsections of Outstanding Work.  Section 4
should be limited to Areas of Agreement, Areas of Support, and
Outstanding Work.

 

Finally, I support Tim's principles.



Thanks.

 

Jon

 

 

________________________________

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 6:01 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

 

I suggest first round of comments back from everyone by COB Monday.
Then hopefully Liz can takeover and finish up with one or two more
rounds of review and comment next week.  

 

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:44 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

No idea as to deadline.  As I will be out for the next few days, I
suggest you go with whatever Mike and Liz would prefer as to process.

         

        
________________________________


        From: Nevett, Jonathon [mailto:jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:41 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

        Kristina:  Thanks for pulling all of this together.  What's the
process/deadline for comments to this draft?  Jon

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:31 PM
        To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

         

        All, 

        Attached is the current draft of the report.  Here's what
changed since last night's version. 

        Added Kelly's Introduction. 

        Added definitions.  I used the definitions I suggested this
morning minus my subsequent revision to RPM.  I indicated that there has
not been discussion of the Rights of Others section.

        Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes.   All fee-related
principles and proposals are here.  Intro makes clear there are no
levels of support.

        Created a new RPM section in Outcomes.  All new RPM proposals
(Peter's, Mike's, and mine) are here.  Intro makes clear that there's
been no decision and there's outstanding work.

        Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support,
Alternative View.  I used the following methodology.  I started with the
chart I circulated last night and re-characterized the levels of support
based on the postings today.  If only one person objected to a proposal,
I characterized the support as Agreement.  If only one person objected
to a proposal and provided their own suggestion, I characterized support
for the original proposal as Agreement and identified the objector's
suggestion as Alternative View.  I characterized the level of support as
Agreement ONLY if there was unanimity OR there was only one objection.
Please check these carefully.  Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT
intentional.  (Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I
think you would find agreeable.  Please check 4.2.5))  Finally, I listed
in Outstanding work everything that had not been substantively discussed
and/or had not resulted in level of support.

        -*- 

        The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not
be consistent.  I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect
agreed-upon terms.  I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do
that is not mentioned here.  Any and all omissions are unintentional.

        K 

        <<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07
17_29.DOC>>