<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail: DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS
- To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail: DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:17:49 -0700
Agreed. I was just trying to find examples. So replace it with .africa or .lac,
it's the principle I was after.<BR><BR>Tim <BR>
<div name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail:
DISPUTES<BR>AND OBJECTIONS<BR>From: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 9:37 am<BR>To: "Tim
Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Liz
Williams"<BR><liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "GNSO RN WG"
<gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
I don't think a proposed gTLD like .euro would need to be included
in<BR>
the controversial name category because I think it would come under
the<BR>
"confusingly similar" condition for which the Dec05 PDP has proposed
a<BR>procedure that is still under development.<BR><BR>Chuck Gomes<BR><BR>
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to<BR>which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,<BR>
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any<BR>
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
If<BR>you have received this message in error, please notify
sender<BR>immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
<BR><BR><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Tim Ruiz
[mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] <BR>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:14 AM<BR>>
To: Liz Williams<BR>> Cc: GNSO RN WG; Gomes, Chuck<BR>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail:
<BR>> DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS<BR>> <BR>> Liz,<BR>> <BR>> I think
that's fair. In fact, in our rewrite of the <BR>
> recommendation for the controversial names report we did
<BR>
> include a couple of thoughts along those lines. Avri will be
<BR>> posting the revised report later this morning.<BR>> <BR>
> My personal thoughts are that objections/disputes should be
<BR>
> formal and come only through an ICANN Advisory Committee or
<BR>> SO during the public comment period. Three examples:<BR>> <BR>>
1. The Staff and/or Board sees that 22% of the public <BR>
> comments pertain to objections based on issue X. If issue X
<BR>
> is technical in nature the Staff or Board might refer that
<BR>
> issue to the SSAC for advice. If they advise that further
<BR>> research should be done, the applied for TLD becomes <BR>
> Controversial. If issue X is public policy related (offensive
<BR>
> to a particular culture, etc.) the Board or Staff could refer
<BR>> it to the GAC.<BR>> <BR>
> 2. The label .laputa is applied for (the Castle in the Sky in
<BR>
> Gulliver's Travels, but also an obscenity in Spanish). If the
<BR>
> localities offended by it can convince the GAC to formally
<BR>> object, it becomes Controversial.<BR>> <BR>
> 3. The label .euro is applied for. European ccTLD operators
<BR>> may convince the ccNSO to object. European business <BR>>
contituents may convince the GNSO to object.<BR>> <BR>
> Objections based on the legal prior rights of others may be
<BR>
> handled differently and the PRO WG may have advice on that.
<BR>
> And there may be local and international laws that pertain to
<BR>> some labels applied for and the applicants within <BR>>
jurisdiction should certainly be subject to those.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Tim <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- Original Message
--------<BR>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail:
<BR>> DISPUTES AND OBJECTIONS<BR>> From: Liz Williams
<liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx><BR>> Date: Mon, March 12, 2007 7:42
am<BR>> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>> Cc: "Tim
Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO RN WG"
<gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>> <BR>> Chuck and Tim<BR>> <BR>
> Could I draw the group's attention to the point that Tim
<BR>
> raises about disputes or objections to strings? As Tim
<BR>
> points out, the new TLDs committee is working on string
<BR>> criteria and has touched briefly on the nature of objection.<BR>>
<BR>
> It would be very useful for the RN group to have a further
<BR>
> crack at sharing thoughts to the Committee through their
<BR>
> report. The findings here are very important from an
<BR>
> implementation perspective. For example, what weight would a
<BR>> staff or independent evaluator place <BR>
> upon objections raised by one person or organisation or government?
<BR>
> How do we manage the (almost inevitable) inbox loading of
<BR>
> board members on a particular string? How do we categorise
<BR>
> and contain legitimate objection to enable an applicant to
<BR>> respond in a timely way?<BR>> <BR>
> I know your group is not being asked to make recommendations
<BR>
> on the implementation process but some rationale thoughts on
<BR>
> the practical impact of reserved names and limitations to
<BR>> string criteria would be useful.<BR>> <BR>> Liz<BR>>
.....................................................<BR>> <BR>> Liz
Williams<BR>> Senior Policy Counselor<BR>> ICANN - Brussels<BR>> +32 2
234 7874 tel<BR>> +32 2 234 7848 fax<BR>> +32 497 07 4243 mob<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On 11 Mar 2007, at 14:25, Gomes, Chuck
wrote:<BR>> <BR>
> > Thanks Tim for the helpful thoughts. I still have one
<BR>> question for the <BR>
> > topic of controversial names that has been briefly discussed
during <BR>
> > the RN-WG work and has also been discussed in the Dec05
PDP:<BR>
> > how do we avoid a situation where it is too easy for any
<BR>> individual or <BR>
> > organization (including governments) to dispute a name and
thereby <BR>
> > cause significantly delays for proposed gTLDs. That just
<BR>> seems like <BR>
> > to likely a possibility to me. It might make sense to
<BR>> recommend that <BR>> > any follow-on work focus on that
issue.<BR>> ><BR>> > Chuck Gomes<BR>> ><BR>
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
<BR>> entity to <BR>
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
<BR>> privileged, <BR>
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any <BR>
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
<BR>> prohibited. <BR>
> > If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender <BR>> > immediately and destroy/delete the original
transmission."<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > From: Tim Ruiz
[mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]<BR>> > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:12
AM<BR>> > To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>> > Cc: Liz Williams; GNSO RN
WG<BR>> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report
detail<BR>> ><BR>> > Regarding Controversial Names:<BR>> ><BR>
> > I don't see any point in this WG consulting further with the
GAC. <BR>
> > As far as recommending that the PDPDec05 committee do it,
<BR>> it doesn't <BR>> > matter to me one way or the other.<BR>>
><BR>
> > The bottom line is that there will be two categories of
<BR>> critiria that <BR>
> > new gTLD applicants will be evaluated on - objective criteria
and <BR>
> > subjective criteria. The latter is unfortunate but
unavoidable.<BR>
> > In the context of this WG's terms of work, Controversial
<BR>> Names is the <BR>
> > reserved category that falls mostly into the subjective
category.<BR>> ><BR>
> > This sub-group has been working with this definition of
<BR>> Controversial <BR>
> > Names - 1) Qualifies as a TLD under the then prevailing String
<BR>
> > Criteria; 2) Does not fall under any other Reserved Name
<BR>> category; and <BR>
> > 3) Is disputed or objected to for reasons other than that it
falls <BR>
> > under any other Reserved Name category. And I suppose we
should add <BR>
> > that it is not being disputed because it infringes on the
<BR>> prior rights <BR>
> > of others since that issue is being addressed separately by
the PRO <BR>> > WG.<BR>> ><BR>
> > What I think the three of us are trying to recommend is that
when a <BR>
> > string applied for becomes Controversial under the above
<BR>> definition, <BR>
> > that there be a process for evaluating the dispute or
<BR>> objection. What <BR>
> > I don't think this sub-group or the WG in general should
<BR>> get into is <BR>
> > exactly what the process should be. So perhaps we leave it at
<BR>
> > recommending further work, and recommending a few high-level
<BR>> > principles that should apply to the resultant process.<BR>
> > The PDPDec05 committee can take it from there. If they pursue
the <BR>
> > recommendation they very well may decide that further
consultation <BR>
> > with the GAC or ccNSO is necessary, or include it in the
<BR>> terms of work <BR>> > of WG (or extend this one) to deal with
it.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Tim Ruiz<BR>> > Vice
President<BR>> > Corp. Development & Policy<BR>> > The Go Daddy
Group, Inc.<BR>> > tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR>> ><BR>
> > This email message and any attachments hereto is intended
<BR>> for use only <BR>
> > by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally
privileged <BR>
> > and/or confidential information. If you have received this
email in <BR>
> > error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently
<BR>> delete the <BR>> > original and any copy of this message and its
attachments.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > --------
Original Message --------<BR>
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report
detail<BR>> > From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>
> Date: Fri, March 09, 2007 7:03 pm<BR>
> > To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO RN
WG"<BR>> > <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>> ><BR>> >
Liz,<BR>> ><BR>
> > My general belief is that it would be better to wait until the
<BR>
> > recommendations are final before spending too much time
analyzing <BR>
> > them. At the same time, I did provide some comments
below.<BR>> ><BR>> > Chuck Gomes<BR>> ><BR>
> > "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
<BR>> entity to <BR>
> > which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
<BR>> privileged, <BR>
> > confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any <BR>
> > unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
<BR>> prohibited. <BR>
> > If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender <BR>> > immediately and destroy/delete the original
transmission."<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-
<BR>> wg@xxxxxxxxx] <BR>> > On Behalf Of Liz Williams<BR>> >
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:22 AM<BR>> > To: GNSO RN WG<BR>> >
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail<BR>> ><BR>> >
Colleagues<BR>> ><BR>
> > I have read through all the reports that have been submitted
so far<BR>
> > -- thank you to all the hardworking volunteers for the
<BR>> work. This is <BR>
> > a long email -- individual readers may wish to just jump
<BR>> directly to <BR>
> > the report that involves them. However, I would
appreciate the <BR>> > thoughts of the group on how to move things
forward<BR>
> > -- I apologise in advance if I've posed self-evident
<BR>> questions but I <BR>
> > would prefer to confirm with the working group rather than
make <BR>> > incorrect assumptions.<BR>> ><BR>
> > I talked to Chuck yesterday and formed some thoughts which
need <BR>
> > further examination. These questions are in no
particular <BR>> order -- I <BR>
> > have just gone through each report as it's filed in my
folder.<BR>> ><BR>> > Report regarding single and dual character
domains<BR>> ><BR>
> > Section 1a. p3 on "expert consultation is desired re
IDNs and re <BR>
> > symbols due to stability and security concerns at both top
<BR>> and second <BR>
> > level". Is it the group's intention to proceed with
seeking this <BR>
> > external advice? If so, when and from whom does the
Group <BR>> expect the <BR>
> > responses. Is this a question that you will immediately
<BR>> give to the <BR>> > IDN WG?<BR>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Except for any advice we receive in the next
day or <BR>
> > two, we are out of time for consulting with experts. It
is <BR>> possible <BR>
> > that final recommendations will include suggestions for
additional <BR>> > consultation with experts; is that happens, that
<BR>> consultation could be <BR>
> > done by the RN-WG if its work is extended by the Council 30
<BR>> days or if <BR>
> > the Council so decides it could be done by some other
<BR>> group. I am not <BR>
> > sure that the IDN WG is the right body to consider security
and <BR>
> > stability concerns but they certainly could be consulted if
<BR>> they are <BR>> > still in operation.<BR>> ><BR>
> > Recommendation 1 Section 1d. p4. "We recommend that this [the
new <BR>
> > registry services funnel] release mechanism be permitted as
<BR>> to one and <BR>
> > two letter and or number ASCII names..." Just confirming
that the <BR>
> > group is referring to an allocation method for existing
registries.<BR>> > [Gomes, Chuck] Yes.<BR>
> > How does the group propose to resolve contention between
applicants <BR>> > for one and two letter/number names?<BR>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Contention would be resolved via the process to
be <BR>
> > developed in response to the Dec05 PDP work.
Through the <BR>
> > existing UDRP process or through another process consistent
<BR>> with the <BR>
> > new TLDs process for resolving contention?[Gomes, Chuck]
Ditto.<BR>> ><BR>
> > A note that this proposal has a direct bearing on existing
registry <BR>
> > contracts and that further detailed discussion may be
<BR>> necessary with <BR>
> > all the members of the Registry Constituency [I didn't see
this <BR>
> > potential work item in the list of further things to do]
[Gomes, <BR>
> > Chuck] What direct bearing does what proposal have on
existing <BR>> > registry contracts?<BR>> ><BR>
> > Recommendation 2 Section 1d. p4 "We recommend that
single <BR>> letter or <BR>
> > number TLDs be allowed in future rounds, via the process to
<BR>> be agreed <BR>
> > via PDP05". Just confirming the group's recommendation
<BR>> means that the <BR>
> > treatment of applications for single letter and single number
TLD <BR>
> > strings will be treated in exactly the same way as any
<BR>> other new TLD <BR>
> > application AND that any "string contention and allocation
methods" <BR>> > would be the same.<BR>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] As I think Avri commented earlier today, I
<BR>> do not think <BR>
> > that is the direction suggested; as I recall from our meeting
on <BR>
> > Thursday, the thinking was that a special allocation method
<BR>> should be <BR>
> > considered for these types of names in addition to the
allocation <BR>> > methods included in the Dec05 PDP work.<BR>>
><BR>> > Report regarding tagged names<BR>> ><BR>> > No
comment with regard to recommendation BUT the <BR>> recommendation needs <BR>
> > to come in a form for the new TLDs report that spells out
<BR>> each of the <BR>> > recommendations in clear language (using,
where<BR>> > appropriate should, must, may] for each of the
recommendations. <BR>
> > Please ensure that the text is as you wish to have it
<BR>> because it can <BR>
> > then be included in the new TLDs report section that
<BR>> relates to IDNs <BR>> > and the technical conditions associated
with IDNs.<BR>> > [Gomes, Chuck] I will update the report.<BR>>
><BR>> > Report regarding geographic and geopolitical terms<BR>>
><BR>
> > There seems to be no recommendation that could be included
<BR>> in the new <BR>
> > TLDs report. However, it is clear that further
discussion is <BR>
> > necessary with GAC members and others. The group should
specify in <BR>
> > what form it would like to receive advice from the GAC,
recognising <BR>
> > the different work styles and timeframes between the GNSO
<BR>> and the GAC. <BR>
> > It is likely that this topic will come up for discussion in
<BR>> the joint <BR>> > GNSO GAC Lisbon session.<BR>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] I assume that any guidance given to the GAC or
<BR>
> > consulation with the GAC will be separate from our report
<BR>> or will be <BR>> > handled by the Council.<BR>> ><BR>
> > Report regarding other names reserved at the second
level<BR>> ><BR>
> > Section 3. Straw recommendation to the entire
WG<BR>> ><BR>
> > This recommendation relates to existing registries rather than
new <BR>
> > TLDs? Does it pre-suppose that registries would work
together on <BR>
> > releasing pairs of names -- is any further work required from
the <BR>
> > Registry Constituency? With respect to new TLDs, can a
version of <BR>> > this recommendation be included in the new TLDs
report?<BR>
> > [Gomes, Chuck] Not really but the wording probably needs to be
<BR>
> > improved. I talked about this issue last week with the
subgroup.<BR>> ><BR>
> > Registry Specific Names: Is the group suggesting that
existing <BR>
> > registries should be subject to "defensive registrations"
<BR>> and have to <BR>
> > go through a UDRP to have a name returned if it were
registered by <BR>
> > someone else? [Gomes, Chuck] I don't think it is
<BR>> suggesting one way <BR>
> > or other. The suggestion is that the requirement is synced
with <BR>> > whatever is done at the second level. This
recommendation needs <BR>
> > further discussion within the PRO group and within the RyC
<BR>
> > constituency. I will send it to Kristina Rosette for
<BR>> inclusion in the <BR>> > next PRO meeting.[Gomes, Chuck]
Maybe?<BR>> ><BR>
> > Other Names Reserved at the Second Level: The proposed
<BR>> recommendation <BR>
> > has a direct bearing on several elements of the new TLDs
<BR>> process. 1) <BR>
> > on selection criteria which depend on a "sponsored" model.
<BR>> There is <BR>
> > no specificity in the existing new TLDs draft recommendations
that <BR>
> > pre-supposes that a sponsored model would continue in
<BR>> future rounds. <BR>
> > Is the group recommending that it should? [Gomes, Chuck]
<BR>> No. But it <BR>> > is possible that proposals for<BR>
> > new gTLDs could include a sponsored
approach. 2) on <BR>
> > allocation methods and resolving contention between competing
<BR>
> > applicants for a "sponsored" community which requires
objective<BR>
> > criteria to resolve contention between applicants [Gomes,
Chuck] <BR>> > As noted above, that will be solved by Dec05 PDP
<BR>> procedures; I don't <BR>
> > see that as a RN-WG task. and 3) on the base contract
and <BR>> contractual <BR>
> > conditions [Gomes, Chuck] Again, I don't think
contractual <BR>> conditions <BR>
> > is in our SoW although our recommendations could be included
in <BR>
> > contracts. . The point of the base contract is to
provide <BR>> a smooth <BR>
> > process for having a new registry operator get under way.
The <BR>
> > proposed recommendation leaves open a process of contract
<BR>> negotiations <BR>> > which may be lengthy and which would be<BR>
> > subject to public comment periods. [Gomes, Chuck] I
would assume <BR>
> > that some of our recommendations will become part of the base
<BR>> > contract.<BR>> ><BR>
> > From Tamara's comments, this is clearly what the group
<BR>> intends but it <BR>
> > does have a bearing not only on the new TLDs report but also
the <BR>
> > implementation plan and application process. [Gomes, Chuck]
<BR>> Not sure <BR>
> > what comments from Tamara you are referring to. I don't
think the <BR>
> > final report will have any individual comments except in
<BR>> the case of <BR>> > minority reports.<BR>> ><BR>> >
Report on ICANN & IANA Names<BR>> ><BR>
> > Is this recommendation in a state that could be put into
<BR>> the new TLDs <BR>
> > report? [Gomes, Chuck] No. If so, it helps with
setting up the <BR>
> > formalised section on Reserved Names and also passes through
to the <BR>
> > implementation plan on "instructions to applicants" about
<BR>> what names <BR>> > to NOT apply for in their
applications.<BR>> ><BR>> > Report on nic, www and whois for
registry operations<BR>> ><BR>> > See section above.[Gomes, Chuck]
No.<BR>> ><BR>> > Report on Controversial Names<BR>>
><BR>
> > Recommendation 3.1 & 3.2: My sense is that these
<BR>> recommendations need <BR>
> > further discussion. [Gomes, Chuck] There will be further
<BR>> discussion. <BR>
> > The creation of reserved lists of controversial names excites
the <BR>
> > interests of many parties and we need further discussion on
three <BR>
> > elements -- any final policy recommendation, discussion of
<BR>> this with <BR>
> > GAC members in the context of their final public policy
<BR>> principles and <BR>
> > in the context of the implementation plan.[Gomes, Chuck]
<BR>> Won't that <BR>> > be interesting. :)<BR>>
><BR>
> > Could the group please suggest HOW they would like this
<BR>> further work <BR>
> > done -- some suggestions include discussion with the GAC
members at <BR>
> > the GNSO GAC meeting in Lisbon and with ccTLD operators as
<BR>> part of the <BR>
> > ccNSO discussions. On the latter, the ccNSO has a very
full agenda <BR>
> > for Lisbon but I do think some email correspondence could
<BR>> be sent to <BR>
> > the ccNSO chair.[Gomes, Chuck] I will let the subgroup
<BR>> consider this.<BR>> ><BR>> > Report on reservation of
third level names.<BR>> ><BR>
> > No comments on recommendation but is it ready to be inserted
into a <BR>
> > report to the Committee? [Gomes, Chuck] Not quite.
We are waiting <BR>
> > for some rewording as suggested on Thursday and then
email<BR>
> > distribution of the revised wording for final approval.
<BR>> Has there <BR>
> > been [Gomes, Chuck] s ufficient discussion to warrant
that <BR>> inclusion <BR>> > -- it has a direct bearing on elements of
a base<BR>
> > contract. [Gomes, Chuck] We will see. Keep in
mind, not <BR>> only for <BR>
> > this one but all the others, none of our recommendations
<BR>> will be ready <BR>
> > for inclusion in the base contract until they are
blessed by the <BR>> > Council.<BR>> ><BR>
> > Apologies for long email -- of course questions and comments
always <BR>> > welcome.<BR>> ><BR>> > Liz<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> >
.....................................................<BR>> ><BR>> >
Liz Williams<BR>> > Senior Policy Counselor<BR>> > ICANN -
Brussels<BR>> > +32 2 234 7874 tel<BR>> > +32 2 234 7848
fax<BR>> > +32 497 07 4243 mob<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|