[gnso-rn-wg] RE: Hold over of a supported CN recommendation from RNv1

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

Avri,

What content did I remove.  I thought I only moved content, but I
confess I have been going stir crazy looking at all the reports.

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: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:51 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Hold over of a supported CN recommendation from RNv1
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In terms of the content you removed when normalizing the 
> report, I think only one bit of the previous recommendations 
> was not either repeated or reworked.  Specifically the 
> processes dealing with what happens to an application when a 
> CN process is initiated.
> 
> I suggest we insert the following in the requirements as the 
> third requirement.
> 
> 
> 1. Propose creating a category called Controversial Names for 
> use at the top level only. A label that is applied for would 
> be considered Controversial if during the Public Comment 
> phase of the new gTLD application process the label becomes 
> disputed by a formal notice of a consensus position or other 
> formally supported decision process from an ICANN Advisory 
> Committee or ICANN Supporting Organization, and otherwise 
> meets the definition of Controversial Names as defined above.
> In the event of the initiation of a CN-DRP process, 
> applications for that label will be placed in a HOLD status 
> that would allow for the dispute to be further examined. If 
> the dispute is dismissed or otherwise resolved favorably, the 
> applications will reenter the processing queue. The period of 
> time allowed for dispute should be finite and should be 
> relegated to a, yet to be defined, external dispute 
> resolution process. The external dispute process should be 
> defined to be objective, neutral, and transparent.  The 
> outcome of any dispute shall not result in the development of 
> new categories of Reserved Names.
> 
> 
> thanks
> a.
> 
>