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

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

Liz,
 
My general belief is that it would be better to wait until the
recommendations are final before spending too much time analyzing them.
At the same time, I did provide some comments below.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
        Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:22 AM
        To: GNSO RN WG
        Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail
        
        
        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?
        [Gomes, Chuck] Except for any advice we receive in the next day
or two, we are out of time for consulting with experts.  It is possible
that final recommendations will include suggestions for additional
consultation with experts; is that happens, that consultation could be
done by the RN-WG if its work is extended by the Council 30 days or if
the Council so decides it could be done by some other group.  I am not
sure that the IDN WG is the right body to consider security and
stability concerns but they certainly could be consulted if they are
still in operation.   

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Yes.
        How does the group propose to resolve contention between
applicants for one and two letter/number names?
        [Gomes, Chuck] Contention would be resolved via the process to
be developed in response to the Dec05 PDP work.   Through the existing
UDRP process or through another process consistent with the new TLDs
process for resolving contention?[Gomes, Chuck]  Ditto.   

        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][Gomes, Chuck]
What direct bearing does what proposal have on existing registry
contracts? 

        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.
        [Gomes, Chuck] As I think Avri commented earlier today, I do not
think that is the direction suggested; as I recall from our meeting on
Thursday, the thinking was that a special allocation method should be
considered for these types of names in addition to the allocation
methods included in the Dec05 PDP work. 

        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. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] I will update the report.  

        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. 
        [Gomes, Chuck] I assume that any guidance given to the GAC or
consulation with the GAC will be separate from our report or will be
handled by the Council. 

        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?
        [Gomes, Chuck] Not really but the wording probably needs to be
improved. I talked about this issue last week with the subgroup.   

        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?[Gomes, Chuck]  I don't think it is suggesting one way or other.
The suggestion is that the requirement is synced with whatever is done
at the second level.  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.[Gomes, Chuck]
Maybe?  

        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? [Gomes, Chuck]  No.
But it is possible that proposals for new gTLDs could include a
sponsored approach.  2) on allocation methods and resolving contention
between competing applicants for a "sponsored" community which requires
objective criteria to resolve contention between applicants[Gomes,
Chuck]  As noted above, that will be solved by Dec05 PDP procedures; I
don't see that as a RN-WG task.  and 3) on the base contract and
contractual conditions[Gomes, Chuck]  Again, I don't think contractual
conditions is in our SoW although our recommendations could be included
in contracts. .  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.
[Gomes, Chuck] I would assume that some of our recommendations will
become part of the base contract. 

        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.[Gomes, Chuck]  Not sure
what comments from Tamara you are referring to.  I don't think the final
report will have any individual comments except in the case of minority
reports. 
        
        
        Report on ICANN & IANA Names
        
        
        Is this recommendation in a state that could be put into the new
TLDs report?  [Gomes, Chuck] No. 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.[Gomes, Chuck]  No. 

        Report on Controversial Names
        
        
        Recommendation 3.1 & 3.2:  My sense is that these
recommendations need further discussion. [Gomes, Chuck] There will be
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.[Gomes,
Chuck]  Won't that be interesting.  :) 

        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.[Gomes, Chuck]  I will let the subgroup consider this. 

        Report on reservation of third level names.
        
        
        No comments on recommendation but is it ready to be inserted
into a report to the Committee?[Gomes, Chuck]  Not quite.  We are
waiting for some rewording as suggested on Thursday and then email
distribution of the revised wording for final approval.   Has there been
[Gomes, Chuck]  sufficient discussion to warrant that inclusion -- it
has a direct bearing on elements of a base contract.[Gomes, Chuck]   We
will see.  Keep in mind, not only for this one but all the others, none
of our recommendations will be ready for inclusion in the  base contract
until they are blessed by the Council.

        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