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

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

Not to split hairs, but does this apply to Working Groups?


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 5:46 PM
        To: Griffin,Lance
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Mike Rodenbaugh
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        
        
        > What is the definition of a minority report?
         
        The Names Council Rules of Procedure specifies that any
Consensus Policy Recommendations of a Task Force must include "a fair
statement of points in opposition and a substantive analysis of their
merits and the intensity of the opposition." Avri can confirm this
perhaps.
         
        > Can anyone file one if they do not agree with the majority?
         
        That is my understanding.


        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
                From: "Griffin, Lance" <Lance.Griffin@xxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Thu, May 24, 2007 4:28 pm
                To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>,  "Mike Rodenbaugh"
                <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Cc: <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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.


                Tim
                



                        -------- 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.
                        
                        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>>