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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Liz,

I think that's fair. In fact, in our rewrite of the recommendation for
the controversial names report we did include a couple of thoughts
along those lines. Avri will be posting the revised report later this
morning.

My personal thoughts are that objections/disputes should be formal and
come only through an ICANN Advisory Committee or SO during the public
comment period. Three examples:

1. The Staff and/or Board sees that 22% of the public comments pertain
to objections based on issue X. If issue X is technical in nature the
Staff or Board might refer that issue to the SSAC for advice. If they
advise that further research should be done, the applied for TLD
becomes Controversial. If issue X is public policy related (offensive
to a particular culture, etc.) the Board or Staff could refer it to the
GAC.

2. The label .laputa is applied for (the Castle in the Sky in Gulliver's
Travels, but also an obscenity in Spanish). If the localities offended
by it can convince the GAC to formally object, it becomes
Controversial.

3. The label .euro is applied for. European ccTLD operators may convince
the ccNSO to object. European business contituents may convince the GNSO
to object.

Objections based on the legal prior rights of others may be handled
differently and the PRO WG may have advice on that. And there may be
local and international laws that pertain to some labels applied for
and the applicants within jurisdiction should certainly be subject to
those.


Tim 
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions:  Report detail:  DISPUTES
AND OBJECTIONS
From: Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 7:42 am
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO RN WG" <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Chuck and Tim

Could I draw the group's attention to the point that Tim raises about  
disputes or objections to strings?  As Tim points out, the new TLDs  
committee is working on string criteria and has touched briefly on  
the nature of objection.

It would be very useful for the RN group to have a further crack at  
sharing thoughts to the Committee through their report.  The findings  
here are very important from an implementation perspective.  For  
example, what weight would a staff or independent evaluator place  
upon objections raised by one person or organisation or government?   
How do we manage the (almost inevitable) inbox loading of board  
members on a particular string?  How do we categorise and contain  
legitimate objection to enable an applicant to respond in a timely way?

I know your group is not being asked to make recommendations on the  
implementation process  but some rationale thoughts on the practical  
impact of reserved names and limitations to string criteria would be  
useful.

Liz
.....................................................

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




On 11 Mar 2007, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>