ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
  • From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:28:29 +0000

What is the definition of a minority report?  Can anyone file one if
they do not agree with the majority?


From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:58 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

This is the current draft? I thought Liz was working on an update. So
there will be no indication of who supports what? I'm not trying to be
an a$$ about that, I just think it's unusual not to and I believe it
will be an important question raised by the Council. Also, will minority
reports be included? I submitted one on Saturday.


        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Date: Wed, May 23, 2007 7:54 pm
        To: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
        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.
        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
        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.
        <<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy