RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
New version attached, and tried to restore relevant redlining.<BR><BR>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 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> Attachment:
controversial_names_report_draft_redline_130307.doc
|