RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
Kristina, this looks really good and I much appreciate all your effort. I have a few suggested edits in attached doc, and three substantive issues for potential discussion and clarification. First, 4.1.4: Agreement that if a new gTLD elects to use a Sunrise Process RPM, then it SHOULD restrict eligible Legal Rights in such a manner as to discourage abusive registration. [I don't understand this 2d clause. Does this mean Registries should narrow the scope of rights that can be protected, to discourage gaming of the RPM process? I don't think there was Agreement on that.] Second, sec 4.1.3 and 4.1.6 seem generally the same principle, I would delete 4.1.6 or characterize it as an Alternative View. Third, 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. [I think there was Support that such an opportunity SHOULD (or even MUST?) be provided. I see no reason not to provide it.] Mike Rodenbaugh _____ From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:31 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>> Attachment:
05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29 (mxr 5-21-07).DOC
|