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

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

Are the members of the subgroup for controversial names (Tim Ruiz, Avri
Doria, Marilyn Cade) in agreement on this version?

Would the following changes in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 be acceptable to the
three of you:

From

"[Note: Earlier versions of this report includes quotes from a draft GAC
report5.55.6.  Due to GAC rules prohibiting the publication of GAC
drafts, the quotes have been removed.  

The issues discussed in this report are based upon some government's
concerns that:

-       New gTLD labels should not promote hatred, racism,
discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of specific
religions or cultures.
-       The labels relating to words associated with national, cultural
or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections from the
community claiming the association.
-       ICANN should consult the GAC, the relevant government(s)
directly, or intergovernmental organizations in assigning new gTLDs. If
the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation of new label,
then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the registration process
until the concerns had been addressed to the GAC's, respective
government's, or Intergovernmental organizations  satisfaction.]

1.2 The basis for the draft principles

The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in support of
the principles: "

To

"The issues discussed in this report are based upon some governments'
concerns that:
-       New gTLD labels should not promote hatred, racism,
discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of specific
religions or cultures.
-       The labels relating to words associated with national, cultural
or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections from the
community claiming the association.
-       If the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation of a
new label, then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the registration
process until the concerns had been addressed to the GAC's, respective
government's, or Intergovernmental organizations  satisfaction.

1.2 The basis for the recommendations

The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in support of
the recommendations:" 

Note that I changed the following:

- deleted the first paragraph ([Note: Earlier versions of this report
includes quotes from a draft GAC report5.55.6.  Due to GAC rules
prohibiting the publication of GAC drafts, the quotes have been
removed.)  I don't believe that this statement adds any real value to
the report and it could flag the issue about violating GAC rules.

- in the 3rd bullet I deleted the first sentence (ICANN should consult
the GAC, the relevant government(s) directly, or intergovernmental
organizations in assigning new gTLDs.)  I think that we all probably
agree that the GAC will need to be consulted in the process at least
through comment periods.

- I changed the title of Section 1.2 from 'The basis for the draft
principles' to 'The basis for the recommendations' because, with the
removal of references to the GAC draft principles I think there was a
disconnect and in fact it seems to me that referring to the
recommendations from the Dec05 PDP makes sense.

- I changed the lead in sentence to the Dec05 PDP quotes from 'The
PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in support of the
principles:' to 'The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows,
in support of the recommendations:'  This was simply to be consistent
with the above changes.

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: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:36 PM
> To: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 13 mar 2007, at 15.00, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> > 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:
> >
> > The basis for my support of the straw recommendation is the desire 
> > that all applications for a new gTLD 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's 
> cultures and 
> > create predictable criteria for applicants.
> 
> 
> I did not get it, but have made the change you indicated in 
> the attached.
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
> 
>