[gnso-rn-wg] advisory to the members regarding the documents you need to have 'handy'

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all, everyone is working up to the last minute on their drafts. Some
comments and suggested edits have been received in the last 48 hours/or last
2 hours, or even last hour. :-) 

 

Please come to the call with Patrick's draft of 1 May, and the drafts you
have received on the RN WG list, which includes many changes that are late
submissions that are not agreed by the sub groups. Each of those groups will
walk through their report: Avri for Controversial names and Patrick for
Single and Two letter [filling in for Greg as chair who is traveling]. We
will discuss briefly the contributions that are late arrivals, and recognize
that we cannot debate a contribution that hasn't yet been reviewed in the
relevant sub group. So, we will be switching back and forth a bit on some
documents.

 

For all the chairs of the sub groups, I will be asking you for a detailed,
but short report. Refer to item 6 and consider that your outline for your
verbal update. At the end of each brief report, I will then refer to item 6.
vii. Please include in your overall description if you are 50% complete; 75
% complete, etc. and what the areas of shortfall are, and how you are
addressing them - having another call, working on line, etc. 

 

We will gather questions from the rest of the WG and keep track of the
questions, but I am going to urge restraint on any debates or long speeches,
especially when the individual members of the WG comment on 6.vii.2. PLEASE
plan ahead so that you can be brief when you raise your 'opposition' at that
point. Note it, explain your perspective quickly, and offer what you
consider the solution, if you have one. We will document these, and move on.
Remember that if you have a minority statement, you have to do the drafting.
:-)  

 

Questions of clarification are the name of the game for today's call, and of
course, questions that are relevant to areas that have been overlooked, etc.


 

We will start sub group reports approx. 10 minutes after we start the clock
of recording the call, at the latest. At the hour - e.g. 3 p.m. EST, we will
take a time check to see where we are. We have A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF
DISCUSSION TO ACCOMPLISH IN TWO HOURS.  

 

Thanks for your participation. 

Marilyn Cade, acting as chair for this session

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:54 PM
To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] IANA names

 

Chuck, 

 

Sorry for delay in providing more here, I am not clear exactly what add'l
background you feel is desirable but I figure the Appendix C must provide
it.  So the below draft email I submit to the WG for discussion today if
desired.  .

 

Dear [ICANN/IANA and various orgs.]:

 

As part of the input into its Policy Development Process regarding new
gTLDs, the GNSO has formed a Working Group to examine current name
reservations in registry operator agreements, and to recommend whether those
reservations should be continued, modified or discontinued.  The Registry
Agreements negotiated by ICANN state that "the following names shall be
reserved at the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which
Registry Operator makes registrations".  The attached interim report from
the WG provides background and a table of the names currently reserved to
IANA and ICANN organizations.  

 

The Working Group has stated thus far:  The role of the reserved names held
by IANA and ICANN has been to maintain for those organizations the exclusive
rights to the names of ICANN (icann), its bodies (aso, ccnso, pso, etc.) or
essential related functions (internic) of the two organizations.

 

Do you believe that names on the attached table -- which correspond or
relate to your organization -- should continue to be reserved at all levels
in all current and future gTLDs?  

 

If yes, please state the reasons why you believe such exclusive rights
should be reserved in all gTLDs, and describe how you have used or may
intend to use these domains in the 16 gTLDs, and in any other TLDs to date.

 

If no, please state which name reservations need not continue, or if you
believe the reservation should be modified (i.e. DNSO should be GNSO) then
please state this.

 

Please provide the name of the person completing this questionnaire, and any
additional comments or questions that you or your organization may have for
the WG.

 

 

 

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

  _____  

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:28 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Liz Williams; edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension

 

Mike,

 

It would be helpful for Liz if you drafted a more complete questionaire for
her to send out including providing some background for the request.  Some
suggestions for questions to ask were given in today's call.

 

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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:26 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Williams; edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension

Copying in Edmon, pls lmk any comments.

 


  _____  


From: Mike Rodenbaugh 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:08 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Williams
Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension

 

Good with me, thanks Chuck.  I am glad this issue is not falling by the
wayside or getting sunsetted, as you know I think it is significant to an
important broader debate.  I will be glad to be on this subgroup as well, if
you like.  I realize the work may not get done, but at least it will
continue.

 

We should soon ask each of the entities any reasons to keep their
corresponding strings reserved.  I figure there may be technical or
operational reasons cited by some (testing, research, etc.), though even
those reasons would likely plainly apply to large brand owners, network
operators, service providers, etc.  I've even begun suggested wording for
the request:

 

As part of the input into its policy development process regarding new
gTLDs, the GNSO has formed a Working Group to examine current name
reservations in registry operator agreements, and recommend whether those
reservations should be modified.  The following names are currently reserved
in all TLDs with respect to your organization, [quote App. section].  

 

The Working Group has stated:  The role of the reserved names held by IANA
and ICANN has been to maintain for those organizations the exclusive rights
to the names of ICANN (icann), its bodies (aso, ccnso, pso, etc.) or
essential related functions (internic) of the two organizations.

 

Do you believe each of [relevant subset of names] should continue to be
reserved in all gTLDs?  If yes, please state the reasons why you believe
such exclusive rights should be reserved in all gTLDs, and describe how you
have used or may intend to use these domains in the 16 gTLDs, and in any
other TLDs to date.

 

I'm also curious to know how the ccTLDs handle these names.  Is it true they
don't have any sort of standard Appendix?  The WG report so far has no info
on that so can we ask Staff (or ccNSO?) whether or which of these names are
reserved in which ccTLDs (or just do a survey of top 20)?  

 

If I really wanted to open a can of worms, I'd ask everyone whether they
thought GAC or any other names should also be reserved ;-)

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any
attachments.


  _____  


From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:18 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Liz Williams
Subject: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension
Importance: High

 

Mike/Liz,

 

Before I send the revised SoW for the 30-day extension of the RN-WG to the
Council list and to the RN-WG list, I would appreciate your review and
comment of the changes I made.  Note that they are highlighted in Section 1
under Tasks regarding Recommendations.

 

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."