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

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

As I said to Victoria, I am sorry that we are having to waste so much
time on this issue, but I do think it is important to maximize our
ability to work with the GAC going forward and I believe this WG is not
the right forum to deal with GAC rules.

Tim & Mariyln - Where are you on this?  We need to finalize the report
and get feedback from the rest of the group.

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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:27 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have a strong desire to see the comment about the issue 
> itself preserved in the document because i think it points to 
> symptom of the problems we have and will continue to have, 
> but given the rules we must live under:
> 
> I can live with the version you have offered.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 13 mar 2007, at 16.15, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>