Please see my responses below.
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: 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
.....................................................
Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob