ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

FW: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles

  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: FW: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:51:55 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=x-mimeole:content-class:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id:x-ms-has-attach: x-ms-tnef-correlator:thread-topic:thread-index:from:to; b=ftay+3z37TnE0qb1z9g7MYAeR4gzkmtEk7on5im5mrRMfeVGp/d1fuFhyFkeWtmj
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcdytSTG9MX+YUwIT4OGh+uMONBsjQAAAahAAALe+uAAAEHbIA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new gTLD principles

Thx Bruce.

Would Council support a further question about 2.4? ...

Furthermore, we note close similarity among many longstanding ccTLDs (such as 
.ai/.al, .am/.an, .bi/.bj, .ch/.cn, .gg/.gq, .ni/.nl, .to/.tp and others).  Is 
the GAC aware of any confusion amongst users of these ccTLDs?

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 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 3:22 AM
To: GNSO Council
Cc: gtld-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Copy of Letter from GNSO Council to GAC regarding the new 
gTLD principles

To: Chair, Government Advisory Committee to ICANN

From: Chair, Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) of ICANN

Cc:  GAC Liaison to the GNSO

Dear Janis,

Thank you very much for transmitting the 28 March 2007 GAC Principles Regarding 
New gTLDs.  

The GNSO Committee on new gTLDs discussed the principles in some detail on 29 
March as part of our ongoing Committee work, and the New gTLDs Committee would 
like to take advantage of the GAC advice of section 3.2 that states:

 "ICANN should consult the GAC, as appropriate, regarding any questions 
pertaining to the interpretation of these principles."

The New gTLDs Committee had some further questions about the interpretation of 
some of the principles.  Here are some examples of where we are seeking 

Section 2.2 - "ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and 
country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in 
agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. "    

It would help to have some examples of some of these terms - e.g example of 
"people descriptions", along with examples of relevant governments or public 
authorities associated with each term.

Section 2.4 -- in particular, "to avoid confusion with country code Top Level 
Domains no two letter gTLDs should be introduced."     

It would help to have more clarity on what was meant by "letter".    Does this 
refer to two ASCII letters such as ".aa", or does it also incorporate IDN names 
such as  ".xn--mxaa" in the DNS (which could be displayed as ".αα" via software 
running on a user's computer)?

2.12    ICANN should continue to ensure that registrants and registrars in new 
gTLDs have access to an independent appeals process in relation to registry 
decisions related to pricing changes, renewal procedures, service levels, or 
the unilateral and significant change of contract conditions.

The words above say "should continue".   Presently we are not aware of an 
existing independent appeals process for "registry decisions" for gTLDs.   It 
would help to have some clarity on the intent of this clause.

The New gTLD Committee believes that it would be helpful to have a 
teleconference between the New gTLD Committee and members of the GAC involved 
in drafting the principles to allow the Committee to gain more clarity.   
Please let me know if the GAC would support holding such a teleconference, or 
whether the GAC would suggest other mechanisms for seeking further 
interpretation of the principles.

Bruce Tonkin

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>