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

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

Thanks Tim for the helpful thoughts. I still have one question for the
topic of controversial names that has been briefly discussed during the
RN-WG work and has also been discussed in the Dec05 PDP: how do we avoid
a situation where it is too easy for any individual or organization
(including governments) to dispute a name and thereby cause
significantly delays for proposed gTLDs.  That just seems like to likely
a possibility to me.  It might make sense to recommend that any
follow-on work focus on that issue.
 
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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:12 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: Liz Williams; GNSO RN WG
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail
        
        
        Regarding Controversial Names:
         
        I don't see any point in this WG consulting further with the
GAC. As far as recommending that the PDPDec05 committee do it, it
doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
         
        The bottom line is that there will be two categories of critiria
that new gTLD applicants will be evaluated on - objective criteria and
subjective criteria. The latter is unfortunate but unavoidable. In the
context of this WG's terms of work, Controversial Names is the reserved
category that falls mostly into the subjective category.
         
        This sub-group has been working with this definition of
Controversial Names - 1) Qualifies as a TLD under the then prevailing
String Criteria; 2) Does not fall under any other Reserved Name
category; and 3) Is disputed or objected to for reasons other than that
it falls under any other Reserved Name category. And I suppose we should
add that it is not being disputed because it infringes on the prior
rights of others since that issue is being addressed separately by the
PRO WG.
         
        What I think the three of us are trying to recommend is that
when a string applied for becomes Controversial under the above
definition, that there be a process for evaluating the dispute or
objection. What I don't think this sub-group or the WG in general should
get into is exactly what the process should be. So perhaps we leave it
at recommending further work, and recommending a few high-level
principles that should apply to the resultant process. The PDPDec05
committee can take it from there. If they pursue the recommendation they
very well may decide that further consultation with the GAC or ccNSO is
necessary, or include it in the terms of work of WG (or extend this one)
to deal with it.


        Tim Ruiz
        Vice President
        Corp. Development & Policy
        The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
        tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
        
        This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for
use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this
email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.
        
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions:  Report
detail
                From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Fri, March 09, 2007 7:03 pm
                To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO RN
WG"
                <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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]  s ufficient 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