ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:22:47 +0200

Dear Colleagues

I have now closed off comment on the report. I will distribute an amended draft final report as soon as possible -- most likely early next week. I would expect that, except for minor typographical edits that the work of the group would be completed for this phase.

I will take into account all the [many] areas of agreement and disagreement and fold all that into a narrative that tries to balance many competing points.

To Tim's question about minority reports -- I have received his and will include it in a special section for minority reports in the appendix. It may work out to be more sensible to include minority views in the body of the report depending on which sections are being discussed.

My thanks to all of you who have participated so vigorously. The next step will be to present to Report to the Committee at the San Juan meeting in a special session for both the PRO and RN WGs on Sat 23 June.

Kind regards.


Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob

On 24 May 2007, at 22:58, Tim Ruiz wrote:

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 17_29.DOC>>

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy