RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN Working Group: follow up from 25 Jan conference call

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you very muck Liz.

Because of the huge amount of information to review before our next
meeting and realizing that all of you have very busy schedules already,
I took the liberty of providing some reading priorities and suggestions
below. They are preceded with my initials (CG).

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Liz Williams
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:44 AM
To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] RN Working Group: follow up from 25 Jan conference
call

Colleagues

I said I would provide the group with broader information that further
explains the context of the Reserved Names Working Group's statement of
work.

1.  The latest version of the PDP Dec 05 new TLDs Committee Report --
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR-14Nov06.pdf.  This  
Report will be updated at the mid February meetings in Los Angeles.   
It is expected that the Report will be finalised in time for the Lisbon
meetings.

CG: This is background information that is useful in the sense that our
SoW refers to the Dec05 PDP (The Introduction of new gTLDs).  It is
quite likely that our recommendations will influence the introduction of
new gTLDs.  At the same time, please be warned that this is a fairly
lengthy document that will be updated shortly so I would suggest that
you briefly skim it and note recommendations relating to reserved names
and related discussion: Recommendation 2.5.2.5; paragraphs 19-24.

2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Discussion Points --
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-StaffMemo-14Nov06.pdf --
which comments on some of the potential implementation impacts of the
Committee's Report above.

CG: This document contains ICANN's staff feedback and clarification
questions in response to the draft recommendations in item 1 above. I
suggest you look at paragraphs 7.3, 7.4, 8, 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3.

3.  The latest version of the PDP Feb 06 draft Task Force Report --
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Feb06-TFR-07nov06.pdf.  Note this
document will be substantially updated to reflect the work of the Group
since the Sao Paulo meeting.  An updated straw poll policy
recommendation table has been sent to  Task Force participants
yesterday.  Note that Terms of Reference for the PDP Dec 06 do not
include reference to Reserved Names for existing registries.

CG: I am sure some will disagree with me on this, but I don't see much
value in reviewing this document because none of the terms of reference
of the Feb06 PDP seem to have much to do with the subject of reserved
names.  It is helpful to be aware of this document because the RN-WG SoW
refers to this PDP several times and we will discuss contractual
reserved names requirements for existing registries.  Feel free to check
this out for yourself.

4.  I referred to three relevant RFCs --  here is the one that is the
most relevant for the time being.
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2606.txt.  I am putting together
some historical and technical information about reserved names and will
forward that early next week.

CG: This is the number one priority (except for reviewing the
'Comparison of gTLD Reserved Names' document). It is important to read
all of this RFC.  It's not too long.  Regarding RFC 2141, another RFC
referenced in our action items for our next meeting, it is fairly
technical but you might want to look at sections 2.3 (Reserved
Characters) and 2.4 (Excluded Characters), although it deals with
characters not names so it is not terribly helpful for our work.  RFC
3491, the third RFC in our action items for our next meeting, specifies
processing rules for IDNs, is quite technical and does not directly
relate to our work; it does address some issues regarding IDNs but, to
the extent that we need that, we will get an IDN expert that can give us
a tutorial at a layman's level.

5.  Finally, here is the GNR proposal for the release of two letter
names --  http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec06.htm
and here is the full set of registry services applications.  For the
purposes of this group, the information which relates to the GNR
proposal is the most relevant.  http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/
submitted_app.html

CG: I wouldn't worry about the full set of registry service applications
found in the first URL, but the GNR proposal, which is one of the
applications in the full set, will be very useful when we discuss
2-character name reservations along with the Registry Services Technical
Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) report in response to that proposal.  Feel free
to review the GNR proposal but it will be more timely a little later in
our work along with the RSTEP proposal.

I will forward more things as the group needs but I didn't want to
overload the group in the first few days.

Kind regards.

Liz

PS  I understand from a one of the participants that my two year old
helper was rather obvious -- unfortunately the call was right across bed
time and I didn't quite manage the mute button well enough!  My
apologies for the disruption.
.....................................................

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