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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

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