RE: [gtld-council] new TLDs work: updated Staff Discussion Points issue areas
- To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, <gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gtld-council] new TLDs work: updated Staff Discussion Points issue areas
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:49:30 -0400
Please see my responses below.
"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: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 3:32 AM
> To: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gtld-council] new TLDs work: updated Staff
> Discussion Points issue areas
> >> Good evening everyone
> >> I wanted to follow up with you on the Staff Discussion Points
> >> document which was posted at http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-
> >> dec05-staff-memo-19jun07.pdf. Since the San Juan meeting, further
> >> detailed implementation planning has been taking place but
> I have set
> >> out below a few issue areas which would benefit from further
> >> Committee input.
> >> Referring to section 2.3 of the Staff Discussion Points
> >> document: We now understand there to be 4 grounds for objection
> >> (confusingly similar; legal rights of others; legal
> principles; and
> >> established institutions).
Chuck: I think this is correct although I am not sure the 'established
institutions' will end up being the best way to charactize the last
category. I can't think of a better one at the moment though.
>Are geographical and cultural
> terms names
> >> intended to be covered by the community-based objection process
> >> arising from the finalization of Recommendation 20 or as
> part of the
> >> Recommendation 5 "reserved word" section?
Chuck: My understanding is that they would be covered by Rec. 20. The
RN-WG definitely recommended not creating a reserved names list for
geographic names and I believe that recommendation was accepted by the
committee. At the end of our new gTLD meeting last week, I specifically
asked which of our recommendations would cover geographic names and the
answer I received was recommendation 20.
> >> Referring to section 3.7.3 of the Staff Discussion Points document
> >> with respect to Recommendation 7 (on an applicant being able to
> >> demonstrate their technical capability to run a registry
> >> operation) staff raised a question on the phrase "for the purpose
> >> that the applicant sets out." As far as we are aware,
> there was no
> >> discussion within the committee on this point. Staff
> notes that in
> >> implementation of this recommendation, the evaluation of technical
> >> capabilities would need to take into account more factors than the
> >> applicant's stated purpose only.
Chuck: Agreed. As I recall, the basis for the phrase "for the purpose
that the applicant sets out" was to recognize that all TLDs may not need
the same technical capabilities beyond what is minimally required for
general security and stability of the Internet. As I understood it, the
applicant's stated purpose as it affects technical capabilities only
comes into play after minimal requirements are met. For example,
depending on their purposes, a .web gTLD would probably require a more
demanding technical infrasture than a .cow gTLD, but both would have to
meet minimal technical requirements that would apply to all applicants.
> With respect to Recommendations 6 & 20, implementation
> guidelines will be completed once the text is stable and
> after the NCUC submits its minority reports on both
> recommendations later this week.
> We do appreciate very much the ongoing work of the Committee
> and look forward to the finalisation of the recommendations.
> Kind regards and, of course, any questions, please just ask.
> Liz Williams
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN - Brussels
> +32 2 234 7874 tel
> +32 2 234 7848 fax
> +32 497 07 4243 mob