RE: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought he said "at" but note what the full communique says in the last 
paragraph of section III: "The GAC therefore intends to provide more 
comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi."  I 
sincerely hope that it is "before".
 
Chuck


________________________________

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
        Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:43 PM
        To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique
        
        

        During the meeting I am 99% sure he said "at".

         

        I understand the diplomacy point.

         

        Adrian Kinderis
        
        

         

        From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 1:41 PM
        To: Adrian Kinderis; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique

         

        Adrian,

         

        GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to comment 
"before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will be available with 
appropriate time offset.

         

         

        Best regards 
        Wolf-Ulrich 

         

         

        
________________________________


        Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
        Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19
        An: GNSO Council 
        Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique

        All,

         

         

        I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this.

         

        Here is what I am concerned about;

         

        1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there 
nor issue) 

        2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this 
draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*.

         

        That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for 
comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. 
March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final 
Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi.

         

        Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is 
significant that the GAC have this view.

         

        Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all.    

         

        Adrian Kinderis

         

         

        -----Original Message-----

        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin

        Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM

        To: Council GNSO

        Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs

         

         

        From GAC Communiqué:

         

         

        The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in 
its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply 
provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions 
in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC 
feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to:

         

        -     the need to take full account of the security, stability and 
resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling 
reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting 
from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; 

         

        -     the importance of  further economic studies to improve  the 
community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; 

         

        -     the need for more effective protection of intellectual property 
rights; 

         

        -     the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural 
separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential 
impacts on competition in the DNS market;

         

        -     the need to explore track differentiation between categories;

         

        -     the need to respect national public interests and sovereign 
rights regarding strings with geographical meaning;

         

        -     the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be 
constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources.

         

        In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be 
issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 
3.  

         

        The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the 
Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.