<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
- To: "Gomes,Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:47:58 -0700
<div>
Chuck, I'm good with it. Avri, thanks for taking over the editing of
this report. I can jump back in on that if you like and make Chuck's
changes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development & Policy<BR>The Go
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR><A
href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><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: "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue, March 13, 2007 3:34 pm<BR>To: "Avri
Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "GNSO RN WG"
<gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
As I said to Victoria, I am sorry that we are having to waste so
much<BR>
time on this issue, but I do think it is important to maximize
our<BR>
ability to work with the GAC going forward and I believe this WG is
not<BR>the right forum to deal with GAC rules.<BR><BR>
Tim & Mariyln - Where are you on this? We need to finalize the
report<BR>and get feedback from the rest of the group.<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: Avri Doria
[mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] <BR>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:27 PM<BR>>
To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>> Cc: GNSO RN WG<BR>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg]
Updated Controversial names report<BR>> <BR>> Hi,<BR>> <BR>
> I have a strong desire to see the comment about the issue
<BR>
> itself preserved in the document because i think it points to
<BR>
> symptom of the problems we have and will continue to have,
<BR>> but given the rules we must live under:<BR>> <BR>> I can live
with the version you have offered.<BR>> <BR>> a.<BR>> <BR>> On 13
mar 2007, at 16.15, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<BR>> <BR>
> > Are the members of the subgroup for controversial names (Tim
Ruiz, <BR>> > Avri Doria, Marilyn Cade) in agreement on this
version?<BR>> ><BR>
> > Would the following changes in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 be
<BR>> acceptable to <BR>> > the three of you:<BR>> ><BR>>
> From<BR>> ><BR>
> > "[Note: Earlier versions of this report includes quotes
<BR>> from a draft <BR>
> > GAC report5.55.6. Due to GAC rules prohibiting the
<BR>> publication of GAC <BR>> > drafts, the quotes have been
removed.<BR>> ><BR>
> > The issues discussed in this report are based upon some
<BR>> government's <BR>> > concerns that:<BR>> ><BR>> > -
New gTLD labels should not promote hatred, racism,<BR>
> > discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of
<BR>> > specific religions or cultures.<BR>
> > - The labels relating to words associated with national,
cultural<BR>
> > or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
<BR>
> > legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections
from the <BR>> > community claiming the association.<BR>> > - ICANN
should consult the GAC, the relevant government(s)<BR>
> > directly, or intergovernmental organizations in assigning
<BR>> new gTLDs. <BR>
> > If the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation of
new <BR>
> > label, then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the
<BR>> registration <BR>
> > process until the concerns had been addressed to the GAC's,
<BR>> respective <BR>> > government's, or Intergovernmental
organizations satisfaction.]<BR>> ><BR>> > 1.2 The basis for
the draft principles<BR>> ><BR>
> > The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>> support of <BR>> > the principles: "<BR>> ><BR>> >
To<BR>> ><BR>
> > "The issues discussed in this report are based upon some
<BR>> governments'<BR>> > concerns that:<BR>> > - New gTLD
labels should not promote hatred, racism,<BR>
> > discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of
<BR>> > specific religions or cultures.<BR>
> > - The labels relating to words associated with national,
cultural<BR>
> > or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
<BR>
> > legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections
from the <BR>> > community claiming the association.<BR>
> > - If the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation
of a<BR>
> > new label, then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the
<BR>
> > registration process until the concerns had been addressed to
the <BR>
> > GAC's, respective government's, or Intergovernmental
organizations <BR>> > satisfaction.<BR>> ><BR>> > 1.2
The basis for the recommendations<BR>> ><BR>
> > The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>> support of <BR>> > the recommendations:"<BR>> ><BR>>
> Note that I changed the following:<BR>> ><BR>
> > - deleted the first paragraph ([Note: Earlier versions of
<BR>> this report <BR>
> > includes quotes from a draft GAC report5.55.6. Due to
GAC rules <BR>
> > prohibiting the publication of GAC drafts, the quotes have
been<BR>
> > removed.) I don't believe that this statement adds any
<BR>> real value to <BR>
> > the report and it could flag the issue about violating GAC
rules.<BR>> ><BR>
> > - in the 3rd bullet I deleted the first sentence (ICANN
<BR>> should consult <BR>> > the GAC, the relevant government(s)
directly, or intergovernmental <BR>
> > organizations in assigning new gTLDs.) I think that we
all <BR>> probably <BR>
> > agree that the GAC will need to be consulted in the process
<BR>> at least <BR>> > through comment periods.<BR>> ><BR>
> > - I changed the title of Section 1.2 from 'The basis for the
draft <BR>
> > principles' to 'The basis for the recommendations' because,
<BR>> with the <BR>
> > removal of references to the GAC draft principles I think
<BR>> there was a <BR>
> > disconnect and in fact it seems to me that referring to the
<BR>> > recommendations from the Dec05 PDP makes sense.<BR>> ><BR>
> > - I changed the lead in sentence to the Dec05 PDP quotes from
'The<BR>
> > PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>> support of the <BR>
> > principles:' to 'The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states
as <BR>
> > follows, in support of the recommendations:' This was
simply to be <BR>> > consistent with the above changes.<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>> >> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> >> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria<BR>> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:36 PM<BR>> >>
To: GNSO RN WG<BR>
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names
report<BR>> >><BR>> >> Hi,<BR>> >><BR>> >>
On 13 mar 2007, at 15.00, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>> >><BR>
> >>> Avri, did you get the version I sent with my
comments<BR>> >> edited? In any<BR>
> >>> event, I changed the first paragraph to the text below
<BR>> but left the <BR>> >>> other two unchanged:<BR>>
>>><BR>
> >>> The basis for my support of the straw recommendation
is <BR>> the desire <BR>
> >>> that all applications for a new gTLD be evaluated
against<BR>> >> transparent<BR>
> >>> and predictable criteria, fully available to the
applicants<BR>> >> prior to<BR>
> >>> the initiation of the process, and that it is
impossible<BR>> >> for ICANN to<BR>
> >>> pre-determine all terms that may be morally offensive
or of<BR>> >> national,<BR>
> >>> cultural or religious significance for all of the
world's<BR>> >> cultures and<BR>> >>> create predictable
criteria for applicants.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>
> >> I did not get it, but have made the change you indicated
in the <BR>> >> attached.<BR>> >><BR>> >>
thanks<BR>> >> a.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>>
>><BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|