RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
Avri, did you get the version I sent with my comments edited? In any
event, I changed the first paragraph to the text below but left the other two 
unchanged:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
The basis for my support of the straw recommendation is the desire that
all applications for a new gTLD&nbsp;be evaluated against transparent and 
predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation 
of the process, and that it is impossible for ICANN to pre-determine all terms 
that may be morally offensive or of national, cultural or religious 
significance for all of the world&rsquo;s cultures and create predictable 
criteria for applicants.</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; 
Policy<BR>The Go Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Mobile: 319-329-9804<BR>Office: 
319-294-3940<BR>Fax: 480-247-4516<BR><A 
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR>How am I doing? Please 
contact my direct supervisor at <A 
href="mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx";>president@xxxxxxxxxxx</A> with any 
feedback.<BR><BR>
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.<BR><BR></div>
<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] Updated 
Controversial names report<BR>From: Avri Doria &lt;avri@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: 
Tue, March 13, 2007 1:41 pm<BR>To: "Gomes, Chuck" 
&lt;cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: "GNSO RN WG" 
&lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>
As far as I understand the rules, we are not allowed to quote from
&nbsp;<BR>
the draft. &nbsp;I did not read the rules as saying that their work
could &nbsp;<BR>
not be mentioned or even referred to. &nbsp;I.e. I did not read it as a
&nbsp;<BR>
complete gag order regarding any/all discussion of their draft
&nbsp;<BR>principles.<BR><BR>
While there is a mention of the inclusion of the full draft in the
&nbsp;<BR>
PDF05 draft Final report, which is quoted unchanged, that annex is
&nbsp;<BR>
not included in this document. &nbsp;But of course it can be redacted in
&nbsp;<BR>the final report if necessary.<BR><BR>
Also, while there are several references to specific principles in
&nbsp;<BR>
Tim Ruiz's comments, these do not actually quote the principles, but
&nbsp;<BR>
only refer to them. &nbsp;In any case those remarks are Tim's and he
would &nbsp;<BR>
need to edit them. &nbsp;Alternatively, they can be redacted in the
final &nbsp;<BR>version as required by ICANN 
rules.<BR><BR>thanks<BR>a.<BR><BR>On 13 mar 2007, at 13.52, Gomes, Chuck 
wrote:<BR><BR>
&gt; My personal opinion is as follows. &nbsp;I don't see any problem
&nbsp;<BR>&gt; referring to<BR>
&gt; the issues but don't think it is a good idea to use direct quotes
from<BR>
&gt; the GAC draft as appeats to have been done in the three bullets
in<BR>
&gt; Section 1.1. &nbsp;I also have reservations about specifically
referring to<BR>&gt; the GAC draft.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Chuck Gomes<BR>&gt;<BR>
&gt; "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to<BR>
&gt; which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged,<BR>
&gt; confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any<BR>
&gt; unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
&nbsp;<BR>&gt; prohibited. If<BR>&gt; you have received this message in error, 
please notify sender<BR>&gt; immediately and destroy/delete the original 
transmission."<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; -----Original 
Message-----<BR>&gt;&gt; From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
&gt;&gt; [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria<BR>&gt;&gt; Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:14 PM<BR>&gt;&gt; To: GNSO 
RN WG<BR>
&gt;&gt; Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names
report<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; hi,<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; After sending this I received an update with comments
from<BR>&gt;&gt; Marilyn Cade that had not been included in earlier 
versions.<BR>&gt;&gt; I have cut those comments in.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt;&gt; There is still a difference of opinion on the subgroup
in<BR>&gt;&gt; terms of adding a discussion of 'some government's concerns'<BR>
&gt;&gt; versus having no discussion at all of their concerns.
&nbsp;The<BR>
&gt;&gt; version attached here still contains a discussion of
'some<BR>
&gt;&gt; government's concerns.' &nbsp;That is section is, however, now
bracketed.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; a.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; 
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>