Re: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart & Responses Required

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck

Thanks so much for quick response -- the individual response  
indicates ONLY a trend so that I can identify where further work may  
be required.  I am trying to close off comments on as many  
recommendations as possible. The final indication of support will be  
after the Final Report is issued where the Council will vote.

Sorry about the tracking function -- I was doing this on the fly as I  
wanted to get this out as quickly as possible.

You have identified all the changes correctly.  I will amend the text  
to include what you've suggested ---   unfortunately I was listening  
and drafting at the same time!

From my perspective you have identified the remaining work but I  
need to wait until I have responses from others.

Kind regards.

Liz

.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 07 Jun 2007, at 19:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I thought we were not going to approach this on a recommendation by
> recommendation basis.
>
> Maybe its just me, but simply using the MS Word tracking function  
> would
> have made it easier to identify the changes made.  In the case of
> recommendations 3 and 5, it doesn't seem totally clear what the final
> recommendation is, what text was added or deleted, and what comments
> were moved elsewhere.  In particular, I think the GAC text was  
> supposed
> to be deleted in recommendation 3; is that correct?  For  
> recommendation
> 5, is all the orange text just notes for elsewhere in the  
> document?  If
> that is the case, then 5 looks fine to me.
>
> If I understood correctly in today's meeting, I thought that
> recommendation 3 should be worded like the following (with my addition
> in lower case font):  ". . . Examples of these principles INCLUDE BUT
> ARE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE FOUND IN THE TRADEMARK SECTION OF THE PARIS
> CONVENTION, the right to free speech as contained in THE UNIVERSAL
> DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL  
> AND
> POLITICAL RIGHTS."  Another alternative that seemed to be  
> acceptable is
> this: ". . . Examples of these principles INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT  
> LIMITED TO
> THOSE FOUND IN THE PARIS CONVENTION, THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF  
> HUMAN
> RIGHTS AND THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS."
> (I think the point made by Robin was that, if you are going to call  
> out
> trademarks, you should also call out free speech.  Did I  
> misunderstand?
>
> I have a minor point on 12 that I did not bring up regarding the  
> change
> suggested by Olof.  What do we mean by "the start of the APPLICATION
> process".  If that means prior to when applications may be submitted,
> then I am not sure that is best.  Wouldn't it be better if it happened
> prior to the 4 month period prior to the application submissing  
> period?
>
> In my opinion all of the recommendations are complete except the
> following:
>
> 3 - We need to make sure we are agreed on the wording and I think it
> would be helpful to understand how we will deal with the  
> recommendations
> of the PRO-WG before finalizing this one.  I believe we made excellent
> progress on this today.
>
> 6 - We need to make sure we are agreed on the wording and I think it
> would be helpful to understand how we will deal with the  
> recommendations
> of the RN-WG regarding controversial names before finalizing this one.
> I believe we made excellent progress on this today.
>
> 12 - Just need to agree on final wording; should be easy.
>
> 20 - I am okay with the current wording but it will be helpful to get
> more information about the implementation process before finalizing  
> it.
>
> 21 - Are we waiting for proposed wording of a possible new
> recommendation to deal with Alan's concern with regard to  
> incorporating
> a requirement in the registry agreement about fulfillment of proposed
> purpose?
>
>
>
> 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: owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Liz Williams
> > Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:39 AM
> > To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gtld-council] PDP Dec 05: Recommendation Chart &
> > Responses Required
> >
> > Colleagues
> >
> > Thank you very much on your continued work and support.
> >
> > Please find attached an overview document which sets out in
> > ORANGE the text from today's meeting.
> >
> > Could I ask you to please RESPOND to me as quickly as
> > possible with your indication of support for EACH of the
> > recommendations as they stand?  I assume that everyone
> > supports the principles and the implementation guidelines as
> > they stand.  They will be used by the implementation team to
> > prepare the presentations on the Implementation Plan for the
> > San Juan meeting.
> >
> > Could you please respond in the following way:
> >
> > Recommendation 1 -- support
> > Recommendation 2  -- need more work
> > Recommendation 3 -- support and so on
> >
> > If you do this, I will be able to finalise significant
> > sections of the Report and provide assistance to the
> > implementation team on a large body of work that depends upon
> > the completion of policy recommendations.
> >
> > I will also be able to advise you on the small elements that
> > need further discussion which will guide the sessions we put
> > together for the San Juan meeting.
> >
> > Kind regards.
> >
> > Liz
> >
> > PS  Note that the cut off for Constituency Impact Statements
> > is COB 9 June Europe time -- thanks to the ISPs, BC and RyC
> > for their statements.