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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Jon,  Thanks for these.
 
All,
 
I've gone back to my notes to address the questions about level of
support characterizations.  According to my notes:
 
4.2.1  At the end of our call on Monday, there was Agreement on this
principle. (We were not unanimous because Avri couldn't agree unless we
had a definition of RPM that encompassed the eligibility/name-selection
requirements referenced in what is now 4.2.3)  After Avri posited and
Tim supported on Wednesday (Thursday?) the Alternative view, it seemed
that what had been Agreement on the MUST variant should now be properly
characterized as Support.
 
4.2.2   The original posting of this principle was the version in
Alternative 1.  During the call, there was Agreement on the principle if
the last clause (and discourage . . . ) was deleted.   Mike R.  wanted
it retained, which is why Alternative view 1 is there.  Avri later
objected and posited Alternative View 2, which Tim supported.
Accordingly, it seemed that what had been characterized as Agreement
should now properly be characterized as Support.
 
Let me know if you have questions or if your notes don't jive with mine.
 
K 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
        Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 9:56 PM
        To: Liz Williams; gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        
        

        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>>