ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-rn-wg]


<<< 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 13:54:12 -0700

New version attached, and tried to restore relevant redlining.<BR><BR>Tim 
Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; 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" 
&lt;cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, March 13, 2007 3:34 pm<BR>To: "Avri 
Doria" &lt;avri@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: "GNSO RN WG" 
&lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<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 &amp; Mariyln - Where are you on this? &nbsp;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>&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; From: Avri Doria 
[mailto:avri@xxxxxxx] <BR>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:27 PM<BR>&gt; 
To: Gomes, Chuck<BR>&gt; Cc: GNSO RN WG<BR>&gt; Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 
Updated Controversial names report<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Hi,<BR>&gt; <BR>
&gt; I have a strong desire to see the comment about the issue
<BR>
&gt; itself preserved in the document because i think it points to
<BR>
&gt; symptom of the problems we have and will continue to have,
<BR>&gt; but given the rules we must live under:<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I can live 
with the version you have offered.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; a.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; On 13 
mar 2007, at 16.15, Gomes, Chuck wrote:<BR>&gt; <BR>
&gt; &gt; Are the members of the subgroup for controversial names (Tim
Ruiz, <BR>&gt; &gt; Avri Doria, Marilyn Cade) in agreement on this 
version?<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; Would the following changes in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 be
<BR>&gt; acceptable to <BR>&gt; &gt; the three of you:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; 
&gt; From<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; "[Note: Earlier versions of this report includes quotes
<BR>&gt; from a draft <BR>
&gt; &gt; GAC report5.55.6. &nbsp;Due to GAC rules prohibiting the
<BR>&gt; publication of GAC <BR>&gt; &gt; drafts, the quotes have been 
removed.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; The issues discussed in this report are based upon some
<BR>&gt; government's <BR>&gt; &gt; concerns that:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; - 
New gTLD labels should not promote hatred, racism,<BR>
&gt; &gt; discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of
<BR>&gt; &gt; specific religions or cultures.<BR>
&gt; &gt; - The labels relating to words associated with national,
cultural<BR>
&gt; &gt; or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
<BR>
&gt; &gt; legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections
from the <BR>&gt; &gt; community claiming the association.<BR>&gt; &gt; - ICANN 
should consult the GAC, the relevant government(s)<BR>
&gt; &gt; directly, or intergovernmental organizations in assigning
<BR>&gt; new gTLDs. <BR>
&gt; &gt; If the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation of
new <BR>
&gt; &gt; label, then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the
<BR>&gt; registration <BR>
&gt; &gt; process until the concerns had been addressed to the GAC's,
<BR>&gt; respective <BR>&gt; &gt; government's, or Intergovernmental 
organizations &nbsp;satisfaction.]<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; 1.2 The basis for 
the draft principles<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>&gt; support of <BR>&gt; &gt; the principles: "<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; 
To<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; "The issues discussed in this report are based upon some
<BR>&gt; governments'<BR>&gt; &gt; concerns that:<BR>&gt; &gt; - New gTLD 
labels should not promote hatred, racism,<BR>
&gt; &gt; discrimination of any sort, criminal activity, or any abuse of
<BR>&gt; &gt; specific religions or cultures.<BR>
&gt; &gt; - The labels relating to words associated with national,
cultural<BR>
&gt; &gt; or religious significance should only be allowed if there is a
<BR>
&gt; &gt; legitimate sponsor and that there were no major objections
from the <BR>&gt; &gt; community claiming the association.<BR>
&gt; &gt; - If the GAC or individual GAC members challenge the creation
of a<BR>
&gt; &gt; new label, then ICANN should defer from proceeding with the
<BR>
&gt; &gt; registration process until the concerns had been addressed to
the <BR>
&gt; &gt; GAC's, respective government's, or Intergovernmental
organizations &nbsp;<BR>&gt; &gt; satisfaction.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; 1.2 
The basis for the recommendations<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>&gt; support of <BR>&gt; &gt; the recommendations:"<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; 
&gt; Note that I changed the following:<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; - deleted the first paragraph ([Note: Earlier versions of
<BR>&gt; this report <BR>
&gt; &gt; includes quotes from a draft GAC report5.55.6. &nbsp;Due to
GAC rules <BR>
&gt; &gt; prohibiting the publication of GAC drafts, the quotes have
been<BR>
&gt; &gt; removed.) &nbsp;I don't believe that this statement adds any
<BR>&gt; real value to <BR>
&gt; &gt; the report and it could flag the issue about violating GAC
rules.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; - in the 3rd bullet I deleted the first sentence (ICANN
<BR>&gt; should consult <BR>&gt; &gt; the GAC, the relevant government(s) 
directly, or intergovernmental <BR>
&gt; &gt; organizations in assigning new gTLDs.) &nbsp;I think that we
all <BR>&gt; probably <BR>
&gt; &gt; agree that the GAC will need to be consulted in the process
<BR>&gt; at least <BR>&gt; &gt; through comment periods.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; - I changed the title of Section 1.2 from 'The basis for the
draft <BR>
&gt; &gt; principles' to 'The basis for the recommendations' because,
<BR>&gt; with the <BR>
&gt; &gt; removal of references to the GAC draft principles I think
<BR>&gt; there was a <BR>
&gt; &gt; disconnect and in fact it seems to me that referring to the
<BR>&gt; &gt; recommendations from the Dec05 PDP makes sense.<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; - I changed the lead in sentence to the Dec05 PDP quotes from
'The<BR>
&gt; &gt; PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states as follows, in
<BR>&gt; support of the <BR>
&gt; &gt; principles:' to 'The PDP-Dec05 draft final report 5.5 states
as <BR>
&gt; &gt; follows, in support of the recommendations:' &nbsp;This was
simply to be <BR>&gt; &gt; consistent with the above changes.<BR>&gt; 
&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt; Chuck Gomes<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt; "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
<BR>&gt; entity to <BR>
&gt; &gt; which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
<BR>&gt; privileged, <BR>
&gt; &gt; confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any <BR>
&gt; &gt; unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
<BR>&gt; prohibited. <BR>
&gt; &gt; If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender <BR>&gt; &gt; immediately and destroy/delete the original 
transmission."<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; -----Original 
Message-----<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt; [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:36 PM<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; 
To: GNSO RN WG<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt; Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names
report<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Hi,<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; 
On 13 mar 2007, at 15.00, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Avri, did you get the version I sent with my
comments<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; edited? In any<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; event, I changed the first paragraph to the text below
<BR>&gt; but left the <BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; other two unchanged:<BR>&gt; 
&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; The basis for my support of the straw recommendation
is <BR>&gt; the desire <BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; that all applications for a new gTLD be evaluated
against<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; transparent<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; and predictable criteria, fully available to the
applicants<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; prior to<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; the initiation of the process, and that it is
impossible<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; for ICANN to<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; pre-determine all terms that may be morally offensive
or of<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; national,<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; cultural or religious significance for all of the
world's<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; cultures and<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; create predictable 
criteria for applicants.<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>
&gt; &gt;&gt; I did not get it, but have made the change you indicated
in the <BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; attached.<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; 
thanks<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; a.<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; 
&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt; &gt;<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>

Attachment: controversial_names_report_draft_redline_130307.doc
Description: MS-Word document



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy