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

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

Thanks Tim.  Is Marilyn on board with this?
 
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." 
 


________________________________

        From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:54 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: GNSO RN WG; Avri Doria
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names report
        
        
        New version attached, and tried to restore relevant redlining.
        
        Tim Ruiz
        Vice President
        Corp. Development & Policy
        The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
        tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
        
        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.
        
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Updated Controversial names
report
                From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Tue, March 13, 2007 3:34 pm
                To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
                Cc: "GNSO RN WG" <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                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.
                > >>
                > >>
                > >>
                > >
                > 
                >