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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jon

It is my intention to take the report in its current form and  
complete it.

I will distribute a completed version ASAP but that should be,  
realistically, mid week.

Kind regards and thanks for everyone's input.

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

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




On 21 May 2007, at 03:55, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

> 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>>