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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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."