FW: [council] Draft Motion for Extension of RN-WG

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thx Chuck. 

 

I have an issue with considering 'registry-specific names' and 'other
reserved names' as 'out of scope'.  I think that, at least, the WG
should attempt to reach consensus on general principles such as:  "to
the extent the registry will reserve names for itself or for later
disposition after initial launch, the registry must commit in its
application to a general description of the types of names that will be
reserved, and a general description of how and when such domains will be
released.  During the post-contract, pre-launch phase, the registry
shall commit to a specific plan for disposition of such names within
five years."

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:32 AM
To: GNSO Council
Subject: [council] Draft Motion for Extension of RN-WG

 

Here's some possible language that could be incorporated into a motion
to extend the RN-WG.

 

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."