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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Chuck,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
Regarding minority reports attached to sub-group reports, where the
primary recommendations of the sub-group report do not have rough consensus of 
the entire WG, there should be an opportunity for the entire WG to express 
support one way or the other for the minority report, correct?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
If there is rough consensus in support of an attached minority report,
then it would be become the WG recommendation for that category and the 
original primary recommendation would become the minority report, correct?</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] 
3 May Meeting Follow-up<BR>From: "Gomes, Chuck" 
&lt;cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Sat, May 05, 2007 6:50 pm<BR>To: 
&lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
I just finished listening to the MP3 of the 3 May teleconference
meeting.&nbsp; Let me again express my thanks to Marilyn for chairing the 
meeting in my absence and compliment all of you for your hard work.&nbsp; In 
listening to the meeting I noted several items that I think deserve attention 
from me as chair; they follow here.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=634073622-05052007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>ICANN/IANA 
Reserved Names</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
It appears to me that the final recommendations for this category are
unchanged since our original report other than improving the wording if 
needed&nbsp;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.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
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).</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Minority 
Statements</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
Please be prepared to submit any minority statements for the full WG
report NLT Wednesday, 9 May; these&nbsp;may be statements from subgroup members 
or from any member of the group.&nbsp;&nbsp;With the exception of&nbsp;the 
Geographic/Geopolitical recommendations, all subgroups&nbsp;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&nbsp;what is needed to write minority statements as 
needed.&nbsp; Minority statements should be sent to the RN-WG list for all to 
review.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Impact of RN-WG 
Recommendations</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
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.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
It is not our main task to make recommendations regarding changes to
contractual conditions for existing gTLDs.&nbsp; 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.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Controversial 
Names</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
I believe this was made clear in the meeting, but I want to make
sure.&nbsp; There is no intention to proactively create a 'controversial names' 
list.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; At the same time the intent is not to make names on 
that list reserved in the future.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>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.&nbsp; Not sure where the balance is or 
how it would be measured.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Geographic and 
Geopolitical Names</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
I need to make everyone in the WG aware of the following.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
Mike and I talked this morning and he anticipates sending the subgroup
members a revised version of the report this weekend.&nbsp; 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.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
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.&nbsp; I look for clarification from Liz in this regard.&nbsp; I do 
recall questions being sent to Liz by the subgroup.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Timeframe for 
RN-WG Work</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
Liz's response to Ray Fassett's question regarding time for additional
work was right on target in my opinion.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; To the extent that we cannot reach rough consensus&nbsp;on any 
recommendations about existing reserved name categories, the Council provided 
direction in Lisbon that we should stay with the status quo.&nbsp; That does 
not mean that if&nbsp;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.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><U>Recommendations 
for Additional Work</U></SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
In cases where additional work is recommended, it is very important that
we provide as&nbsp;guidelines that are as clear as 
possible.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=634073622-05052007>
If anyone has any questions or comments regarding the above, please let
me know.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN 
class=634073622-05052007></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Chuck Gomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
"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." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=634073622-05052007><FONT face=Arial 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>