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

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

Well said Marilyn.

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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: 'Liz Williams'; Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'GNSO RN WG'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail: 
> DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS
> 
> I think that this group in particular can point to the 
> forthcoming GAC principles and suggest that further 
> discussion should occur related to the principles. 
> 
> The concept of the disputed/controversial category was NOT to 
> create a situation where a single objection could cancel an 
> application, but to provide a better path to allow an 
> applicant to 'cure' deficiencies or answer valid questions. :-) 
> 
> Let's step back. The PDP 05 TF is underway and working hard. 
> The Council chartered three working groups to help to inform 
> the process and provide input, both to the Council, but to 
> also provide further support to the work of the PDP Dec 05 
> recommendations.  
> 
> The WG RN, and conceivably PRO WG will undoubtedly make 
> recommendations for further work in some areas -- that was 
> established in the original SoW approved by the Council. Some 
> 'low hanging fruit' might have recommendations, while other 
> areas would require further work either by this TF in a 30 
> day period, or via some other mechanism. The WG was expected 
> to make some suggestions for how to do further work so that 
> the Council could discuss options. ... 
> 
> ... recalling from both discussion and the SoW approved, as 
> one of the co-authors of the SoW
> 
> Marilyn Cade
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:43 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: Tim Ruiz; GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail: 
> DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>