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
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
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
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
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.]
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
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
<<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29.DOC>>