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

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

Now my mind is in gear Avri.  You must be talking about the old
recommendation.  Ignore my last message.  I will now focus on your
suggestion.  Is that the only change needed?

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: Gomes, Chuck 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 5:54 PM
> To: 'Avri Doria'
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: RE: Hold over of a supported CN recommendation from RNv1
> 
> 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.
> > 
> >