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

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

Makes sense to me Tim.
 
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: Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:28 AM
        To: Gomes, Chuck
        Cc: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 3 May Meeting Follow-up
        
        
        Chuck,
         
        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?
         
        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?


        Tim 
        



                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] 3 May Meeting Follow-up
                From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Sat, May 05, 2007 6:50 pm
                To: <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                
                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."