ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-rn-wg]


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

[gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail

  • To: GNSO RN WG <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail
  • From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:22:05 +0100

Colleagues

I have read through all the reports that have been submitted so far -- thank you to all the hardworking volunteers for the work. This is a long email -- individual readers may wish to just jump directly to the report that involves them. However, I would appreciate the thoughts of the group on how to move things forward -- I apologise in advance if I've posed self-evident questions but I would prefer to confirm with the working group rather than make incorrect assumptions.

I talked to Chuck yesterday and formed some thoughts which need further examination. These questions are in no particular order -- I have just gone through each report as it's filed in my folder.

Report regarding single and dual character domains

Section 1a. p3 on "expert consultation is desired re IDNs and re symbols due to stability and security concerns at both top and second level". Is it the group's intention to proceed with seeking this external advice? If so, when and from whom does the Group expect the responses. Is this a question that you will immediately give to the IDN WG?

Recommendation 1 Section 1d. p4. "We recommend that this [the new registry services funnel] release mechanism be permitted as to one and two letter and or number ASCII names..." Just confirming that the group is referring to an allocation method for existing registries. How does the group propose to resolve contention between applicants for one and two letter/number names? Through the existing UDRP process or through another process consistent with the new TLDs process for resolving contention?

A note that this proposal has a direct bearing on existing registry contracts and that further detailed discussion may be necessary with all the members of the Registry Constituency [I didn't see this potential work item in the list of further things to do]

Recommendation 2 Section 1d. p4 "We recommend that single letter or number TLDs be allowed in future rounds, via the process to be agreed via PDP05". Just confirming the group's recommendation means that the treatment of applications for single letter and single number TLD strings will be treated in exactly the same way as any other new TLD application AND that any "string contention and allocation methods" would be the same.

Report regarding tagged names

No comment with regard to recommendation BUT the recommendation needs to come in a form for the new TLDs report that spells out each of the recommendations in clear language (using, where appropriate should, must, may] for each of the recommendations. Please ensure that the text is as you wish to have it because it can then be included in the new TLDs report section that relates to IDNs and the technical conditions associated with IDNs.

Report regarding geographic and geopolitical terms

There seems to be no recommendation that could be included in the new TLDs report. However, it is clear that further discussion is necessary with GAC members and others. The group should specify in what form it would like to receive advice from the GAC, recognising the different work styles and timeframes between the GNSO and the GAC. It is likely that this topic will come up for discussion in the joint GNSO GAC Lisbon session.

Report regarding other names reserved at the second level

Section 3.  Straw recommendation to the entire WG

This recommendation relates to existing registries rather than new TLDs? Does it pre-suppose that registries would work together on releasing pairs of names -- is any further work required from the Registry Constituency? With respect to new TLDs, can a version of this recommendation be included in the new TLDs report?

Registry Specific Names: Is the group suggesting that existing registries should be subject to "defensive registrations" and have to go through a UDRP to have a name returned if it were registered by someone else? This recommendation needs further discussion within the PRO group and within the RyC constituency. I will send it to Kristina Rosette for inclusion in the next PRO meeting.

Other Names Reserved at the Second Level: The proposed recommendation has a direct bearing on several elements of the new TLDs process. 1) on selection criteria which depend on a "sponsored" model. There is no specificity in the existing new TLDs draft recommendations that pre-supposes that a sponsored model would continue in future rounds. Is the group recommending that it should? 2) on allocation methods and resolving contention between competing applicants for a "sponsored" community which requires objective criteria to resolve contention between applicants and 3) on the base contract and contractual conditions. The point of the base contract is to provide a smooth process for having a new registry operator get under way. The proposed recommendation leaves open a process of contract negotiations which may be lengthy and which would be subject to public comment periods.

From Tamara's comments, this is clearly what the group intends but it does have a bearing not only on the new TLDs report but also the implementation plan and application process.

Report on ICANN & IANA Names

Is this recommendation in a state that could be put into the new TLDs report? If so, it helps with setting up the formalised section on Reserved Names and also passes through to the implementation plan on "instructions to applicants" about what names to NOT apply for in their applications.

Report on nic, www and whois for registry operations

See section above.

Report on Controversial Names

Recommendation 3.1 & 3.2: My sense is that these recommendations need further discussion. The creation of reserved lists of controversial names excites the interests of many parties and we need further discussion on three elements -- any final policy recommendation, discussion of this with GAC members in the context of their final public policy principles and in the context of the implementation plan.

Could the group please suggest HOW they would like this further work done -- some suggestions include discussion with the GAC members at the GNSO GAC meeting in Lisbon and with ccTLD operators as part of the ccNSO discussions. On the latter, the ccNSO has a very full agenda for Lisbon but I do think some email correspondence could be sent to the ccNSO chair.

Report on reservation of third level names.

No comments on recommendation but is it ready to be inserted into a report to the Committee? Has there been sufficient discussion to warrant that inclusion -- it has a direct bearing on elements of a base contract.

Apologies for long email -- of course questions and comments always welcome.

Liz


.....................................................

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






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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy