[gnso-rn-wg] 3 May Meeting Follow-up

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

I just finished listening to the MP3 of the 3 May teleconference
meeting.  Let me again express my thanks to Marilyn for chairing the
meeting in my absence and compliment all of you for your hard work.  In
listening to the meeting I noted several items that I think deserve
attention from me as chair; they follow here.
 
ICANN/IANA Reserved Names

*       It appears to me that the final recommendations for this
category are unchanged since our original report other than improving
the wording if needed so that they are easily transferred into the new
gTLD report with examples and reference to the IDN WG recommendations
where applicable; this means that for ASCII names we should recommend
the status quo for now and also recommend additional work by the GNSO
for future consideration.
*       The final ICANN/IANA subgroup report should be updated per
above, put into the new format (including data from the original report
plus information regarding the additional work that was initiated but
not finished during the 30-day extension and guidelines for how that
work might be continued).

Minority Statements

*       Please be prepared to submit any minority statements for the
full WG report NLT Wednesday, 9 May; these may be statements from
subgroup members or from any member of the group.  With the exception of
the Geographic/Geopolitical recommendations, all subgroups provided an
overview of the recommendations they are considering in the 3 May
meeting; the final subgroup reports are to be distributed to the full WG
list NLT 8 May; so everyone should have what is needed to write minority
statements as needed.  Minority statements should be sent to the RN-WG
list for all to review.

Impact of RN-WG Recommendations

*       The recommendations of the RN-WG may apply in two primary ways
regarding the introduction of new gTLDs: 1) reserved names that are not
allowed as new gTLDs (top level); 2) reserved names below the top level
that become part of the contractual conditions for new gTLD registries.
*       It is not our main task to make recommendations regarding
changes to contractual conditions for existing gTLDs.  That does not
mean we cannot make recommendations in that regard, but if we do, we
should be explicit about that and we should separate any such
recommendations from those relating directly to our main focus, new gTLD
reserved names.

Controversial Names

*       I believe this was made clear in the meeting, but I want to make
sure.  There is no intention to proactively create a 'controversial
names' list.  But the new gTLD PDP committee has discussed the
possibility of establish a 'disputed names' list containing all names
that are rejected through the new gTLD dispute process; that list would
be updated anytime a new gTLD name is rejected and the list would be
publicly available so that new applicants are aware.  At the same time
the intent is not to make names on that list reserved in the future.
*       As the Controversial Names subgroup considers their final
recommendations, I agree with the sentiments that there needs to be a
reasonable bar for disputes of controversial names, but I tent to think
that consensus by supporting organizations may be unreasonably high.
Not sure where the balance is or how it would be measured.

Geographic and Geopolitical Names

*       I need to make everyone in the WG aware of the following.  After
our meeting on 25 April, Mike Palage submitted his resignation as chair
of this subgroup to me because of some new conflicts of interests he now
has and because his available time was very limited.  Because of the
limited time we had left and because he had done so much individual work
on this topic, I strongly encouraged him to not resign and to submit a
new interest statement to the WG.
*       Mike and I talked this morning and he anticipates sending the
subgroup members a revised version of the report this weekend.  He sent
revised recommendations to the subgroup members with a cc to me late in
the week; the recommendations appear to me to be responsive to the SoW
and I am optimistic that the subgroup will be able to meet the 8 May
deadline.
*       Regarding the discussion in the meeting relating to questions
sent to the GAC, I do not recall sending any questions to the GAC myself
nor am I aware of any pending action item on my part in this regard, but
my memory may be faulty.  I look for clarification from Liz in this
regard.  I do recall questions being sent to Liz by the subgroup.

Timeframe for RN-WG Work

*       Liz's response to Ray Fassett's question regarding time for
additional work was right on target in my opinion.  Our work must be
completed by 10 May and our final report must contain recommendations
regarding reserved names that are sufficient to provide the direction
needed in the introduction of new gTLDs.  To the extent that we cannot
reach rough consensus on any recommendations about existing reserved
name categories, the Council provided direction in Lisbon that we should
stay with the status quo.  That does not mean that if any additional
work that may be done before new gTLDs are introduced that any resulting
changes could not be incorporated into the process, but that will be out
of our hands as a working group.

Recommendations for Additional Work

*       In cases where additional work is recommended, it is very
important that we provide as guidelines that are as clear as possible.

If anyone has any questions or comments regarding the above, please let
me know.
 
 
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."