Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Draft Final WG Report

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck

Thank you so much for this excellent piece of work which is so  
comprehensive and orderly.
A couple of suggestions as you get through completing the work

1.  The most time critical piece is recommendations from the group  
regarding new TLDs.  Could you separate out a table of  
recommendations that relates particularly to new TLDs?
For example, recommendation 1 (and I'm making this up).   "With  
respect to string criteria and reserved names at the top level, the  
Working Group recommends that the following sets of names x y z  
remain reserved..."   Recommendation 2,  "With respect to policies  
for contractual conditions for new TLD operators, the Working Group  
recommends that the existing contractual conditions (and refer to the  
correct Appendix) remain in place, should be changed, could be  
improved ..."
This is necessary to fill the placeholder markers I have in the new  
TLDs report which could be incorporated at the Lisbon meeting.
2.  It would be helpful in the "need more work section" to specify  
what the WG thinks may be the best way of completing the work.  For  
example, with respect to geopolitical identifiers, the group  may  
wish to make a suggestion along the following lines (and I'm making  
this up as well) "The WG suggests that the Committee meet for a  
working session with the GAC; prepare correspondence; decide on x y  
z..."  This is, again, a very important piece of the work for the new  
TLDs process where we are relying on other participants.
3.  Some of the suggestions that the Group makes will have a direct  
bearing on the implementation plan which is, as you know, being  
developed in parallel with the policy development process.  I would  
like to arrange a meeting (by phone) with you and any members of the  
group who may be interested, to talk to Craig Schwartz (who is  
leading on the implementation planning) earlier rather than later in  
the work.
4.  One final set of thoughts about allocation methods -- if the WG  
recommends that some names, in the new TLD round, would be available  
for the future then those previously reserved names for exsiting  
registries would just become like any other application?  That means  
that the allocation methods for string contention would be the same  
as is currently under discussion.
5.  Lastly, do you plan to separate out in your report the treatment  
of reserved names in existing registries.  If it's determined that  
some current reservations will be changed, then the outstanding piece  
of the work is a proposal for an allocation method for those names at  
some later date OR do you expect those reservations to be "lifted"  
and become part of the process for the new TLDs round?
Sorry -- lots of questions and suggestions which I'm more than happy  
to help with if you need it.
Kind regards and, again, thanks so much for cracking the whip over  
your poor volunteers so effectively!
Liz
.....................................................

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




On 07 Mar 2007, at 01:45, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> <GNSO Reserved Name Working Group Report 6 Mar 07 Draft.doc>