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

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

To clarify:  I haven't issued any instructions or made any requests to
the effect of excluding your report.


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:12 PM
        To: Tim Ruiz; Mike Rodenbaugh
        Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
        
        
        Tim, 
         
        See below in CAPS.  
         
        K


________________________________

                From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
                Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 4:58 PM
                To: Mike Rodenbaugh
                Cc: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
                Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
                
                
                This is the current draft?  YES, FOR COMMENT PURPOSES.
I thought Liz was working on an update.    IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
SHE IS, BUT THAT ITS FOCUS UP TO NOW IS REVISIONS TO SECTIONS OTHER THAN
4.  IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT REVISIONS TO SECTION 4 WOULD BE BASED ON
THE COMMENTS POSTED SINCE I DISTRIBUTED THE INITIAL DRAFT.  IT'S ALSO MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WILL CIRCULATE A FINAL DRAFT BASED ON HER
REVISIONS TO SECTIONS OTHER THAN 4 AND, W/R/T SECTION 4, WHAT EVERYONE
HAS POSTED SINCE LAST THURSDAY. So there will be no indication of who
supports what?   I HAVE A FEELING I'M NOT ANSWERING THE "RIGHT"
QUESTION, BUT IT WILL TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM PRIOR POSTINGS
AND COMMENTS.  IF PEOPLE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED THEIR POSITIONS, I DON'T
KNOW HOW SHE WOULD KNOW OTHERWISE.  THERE'S NO REASON WHY PEOPLE
COULDN'T POST WHAT THEY SUPPORT   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.  I HAVE NO BASIS FOR AGREEING
OR DISAGREEING HERE.  I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD PROCEDURE IS
OR WHETHER COUNCIL WILL WANT TO KNOW. Also, will minority reports be
included?  I DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO THINK OTHERWISE; HAVING SAID THAT,
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCEDURAL RULES ARE.   I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T ISSUED
ANY INSTRUCTIONS OR MADE ANY REQUESTS TO THAT EFFECT.   I SHOULD ALSO
NOTE, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE OBNOXIOUS, THAT I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF
WE HAVE A MAJORITY TO WHICH THERE COULD BE A MINORITY.  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>>