RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Two forgotten items in today's meeting

["Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

My personal, not-ICANN staff, opinion is that the draft GAC report has been
made public and that the WG should be able to refer to it in the final
document. The WG should rely on all available information in making its
recommendations to the Council. Because of the potentially far-reaching
effects of the GAC Principles on the new gTLD process, reference to the GAC
Principles should be included.

 

Patrick 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:41 PM
To: GNSO RN WG
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Two forgotten items in today's meeting
Importance: High

 

In my rush in trying to complete the agenda today I forgot two items: 1)
discussion about including the draft GAC report in our final document; 2) a
request from Kristina Rosette, chair of the PRO-WG.

 

1)  As most of you may have seen, both Mike Palage and Avri Doria believe
that it is appropriate to include the GAC draft report regarding new gTLD
principles in the final RN-WG report as well as in some of the subgroup
reports.  Marilyn Cade communicated that she recommends that it not be
included.  And I have essentially supported Marilyn's position.  I will not
repeat any of the list discussion on this but will leave that for you to
read on your own.  I would appreciate it if others would communicate your
opinion on this so that I can get a broader sense of the group.  In the
meantime, I will send Suzanne Sene a message asking if the GAC considers it
a public document and if it is okay for us to include it in our report with
clear qualification that it is a draft document, yet to be finalized.

 

2)  Here is Kristina's request: "It's my understanding that there are some
RN WG issues or points on which PRO consultation/advice/discussion has been
suggested.  As it is inevitable that some relevant background will get lost
in the translation if I introduce the topic, it would be most helpful if the
RN WG point person on the particular issue could do so.  "Introduction"
could be by way of a short email to me - that I will then post on the PRO
list - that sets out what the issue is, what the request for PRO is, and
what the requested output is (e.g., answer to a question, suggested
wording).  Alternatively, that person would be welcome to participate at the
end of our weekly call and make a 5-minute presentation."  Note that the
PRO-WG has a call tomorrow, Tuesday, 13 March at 19:00 UTC, an hour later
than the call we had today.  If any of the working group members wants to
respond to Kristina, please feel free to do so: Rosette, Kristina
[krosette@xxxxxxx].

 

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."