<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Extract from Draft Council minutes 6 September 2007
- To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Extract from Draft Council minutes 6 September 2007
- From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:35 +0200
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org]
Dear Council Members,
Please find an extract from the draft minutes of the GNSO Council
teleconference held on 6 September 2007.
This is the portion of the minutes that will be included in the Board
report.
Please let me know if you would like any changes made.
Thank you very much.
Kind regards,
Glen
...........................................................................
Extract from the Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference
6 September 2007
Proposed agenda and documents
List of attendees:
Philip Sheppard - Commercial & Business Users C - absent apologies
Mike Rodenbaugh - Commercial & Business Users C.
Bilal Beiram - Commercial & Business Users C -
Greg Ruth - ISCPC
Antonio Harris - ISCPC
Tony Holmes - ISCPC - absent - apologies
Thomas Keller- Registrars
Ross Rader - Registrars - absent - apologies
Adrian Kinderis - Registrars
Chuck Gomes - gTLD registries
Edmon Chung - gTLD registries
Cary Karp - gTLD registries
Kristina Rosette - Intellectual Property Interests C
Ute Decker - Intellectual Property Interests C
Cyril Chau - Intellectual Property Interests C
Robin Gross - NCUC
Norbert Klein - NCUC
Mawaki Chango - NCUC
Sophia Bekele - Nominating Committee appointee
Jon Bing - Nominating Committee appointee
Avri Doria - Nominating Committee appointee
18 Council Members
(23 Votes - quorum)
ICANN Staff
John Jeffrey - General Counsel.
Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development
Olof Nordling - Manager, Policy Development Coordination
Kurt Pritz - Senior Vice President, Services
Liz Williams - Senior Policy Counselor
Craig Schwartz - Chief gTLD Registry Liaison
Patrick Jones - Registry Liaison Manager
Glen de Saint Géry - GNSO Secretariat
GNSO Council Liaisons
Suzanne Sene - GAC Liaison
Alan Greenberg - ALAC Liaison
Rita Rodin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Bruce Tonkin - ICANN Board member - absent - apologies
Observers
Miriam Sapiro - consultant
Liz Gasster - consultant
MP3 Recording
Avri Doria chaired this meeting
Approval of the agenda
Item 1: Update any Statements of Interest
No updates
Item 2: Discussion of New gTLDs
2.1 - review reports
Final Report Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part A: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
Part B: Final Report
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-partb-01aug07.htm
2.2 - review public comments
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/
Liz Williams reported that the Final Report Part A and B, Introduction
of New Generic Top-Level Domains
posted for the public comments, included the edits posted by individual
Council members among whom were mentioned Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes,
incorporated all the small group discussions and the final committee
meeting on 6 August 2007.
The public comment forum ran from 10 to 30 August 2007
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm
There were 81 comments in all and a synopsis of the comments was posted at
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00082.html
The issues fell into three categories.
1. The first category related to recommendations 6 and 20 with similar
language about the way in which morality and public order issues and
their lead objection process would be handled.
2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the
process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective
application process available as quickly as possible.
3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which
included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to
the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others.
The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for
producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that
were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be
included in the Board report.
The agreed process was to discuss the principles or recommendations
where there were issues or comments.
Principle A
New generic top-level domains (gTLDs) must be introduced in an orderly,
timely and predictable way
No comments
Principle B
Some new generic top-level domains should be internationalised domain
names (IDNs) subject to the approval of IDNs being available in the root.
No comments
Principle C
The reasons for introducing new top-level domains include that there is
demand from potential applicants for new top-level domains in both ASCII
and IDN formats. In addition the introduction of new top-level domain
application process has the potential to promote competition in the
provision of registry services, to add to consumer choice, market
differentiation and geographical and service-provider diversity.
Mike Rodenbaugh asked for clarification of the statement "the reasons
for introducing new TLDs include their demand from potential applicants"
Avri Doria commented that in the absence of statistics or metric of
demand, anecdotally demand was visible.
Tony Harris commented that there was a lack of available domain options
which was a good basic reason to introduce new ones.
Chuck Gomes called attention to the wording of the principle,
"there is demand from potential applicant for new top-level domains.."
which did not quantify, but stated that was there is demand from
potential applicants. Public comments and personal requests received
attested to the demand from applicants.
Mawaki Chango added that during the ICANN public forum in San Juan
forum, many participants called for the completion of the process so
that they could apply for TLDs.
Principle D
A set of technical criteria must be used for assessing a new gTLD
registry applicant to minimise the risk of harming the operational
stability, security and global interoperability of the Internet.
No comments
Principle E
A set of capability criteria for a new gTLD registry applicant must be
used to provide an assurance that an applicant has the capability to
meets its obligations under the terms of ICANN's registry agreement.
No comments
Principle F
A set of operational criteria must be set out in contractual conditions
in the registry agreement to ensure compliance with ICANN policies.
No comments
Principle G
The string evaluation process must not infringe the applicant's freedom
of expression rights that are protected under internationally recognized
principles of law.
No comments
Recommendation 1
ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new
top-level domains.
The evaluation and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should
respect the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination.
All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated
against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the
applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore,
no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the
selection process.
No comments
Recommendation 2
Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain
or a Reserved Name.
Mawaki Chango expressed concern about moving away from the terms
'visually confusing' or 'visually similar' to 'confusingly similar'.
Chuck Gomes clarified that the committee had chosen 'confusingly
similar' because it was a broader term used in some international
treaties and that this was fully noted in:
Recommendation 2
iv) The Committee used a wide variety of existing law[42], international
treaty agreements and covenants to arrive at a common understanding that
strings should not be confusingly similar either to existing top-level
domains like .com and .net or to existing trademarks[43]. For example,
the Committee considered the World Trade Organisation's TRIPS agreement,
in particular Article 16 which discusses the rights which are conferred
to a trademark owner.[44] In particular, the Committee agreed upon an
expectation that strings must avoid increasing opportunities for
entities or individuals, who operate in bad faith and who wish to
defraud consumers. The Committee also considered the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights[45] and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights which address the "freedom of expression" element
of the Committee's deliberations.
Mawaki Chango also expressed specific concern about the new gTLD policy
in the content of multi-script TLD strings.
Avri Doria commented that there had been specific discussion of
multiple-script TLD strings.
Mike Rodenbaugh expressed concern that an 'Implementation Plan' was
mentioned in Recommendation 2 xvii) while in fact it was not yet available.
"There is tension between those on the Committee who are concerned about
the protection of existing TLD strings and those concerned with the
protection of trademark and other rights as compared to those who wish,
as far as possible, to preserve freedom of expression and creativity.
The Implementation Plan sets out a series of tests to apply the
recommendation during the application evaluation process."
Staff commented that there was work in progress, experts were being
consulted, and the goal would be to have confusingly similar disputes
resolved by an algorithm that would be posted ahead of time.
Avri Doria commented that the draft implementation note from the staff
indicated that a series of tests using the algorithm have not been
formulized or finalized.
It was agreed that the language should be changed from "implementation
plan" to "work in progress".
Recommendation 3
Strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others that are
recognized or enforceable under generally accepted and internationally
recognized principles of law.
Examples of these legal rights that are internationally recognized
include, but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industry Property (in particular trademark
rights), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (in
particular freedom of expression rights).
No Comments
Recommendation 4
Strings must not cause any technical instability.
Avri Doria commented that there were public comments on this recommendation.
Recommendation 5
Strings must not be a Reserved Word.
No comments
Recommendation 6
Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating
to morality and public order that are recognized under international
principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).
Robin Gross reiterated NCUC’s continued objection to Recommendation 6 as
stated in the Statement of DISSENT on Recommendation #6
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc43798015
and called attention to the many comments that were received in the
public comment period objecting to Recommendation Number 6.
Robin Gross further stated:
"I think that Recommendation Number 6 is so bad that I will vote against
the entire report based upon Recommendation Number 6 and 20 alone."
Norbert Klein expressed concern that although many comments were
recorded on recommendation 6, there had been no consequence and they had
not received sufficient attention.
Chuck Gomes agreed that there were recommendations that not everyone
could agree on, but in the general approach of trying to reach a rough
consensus that a strong majority of the group could support,
considerable time and a sincere and effective effort was made on
recommendation 6 to try and address the concerns of competing
constituencies and interests. The NCUC concerns were addressed in a
reasonable manner considering that there was no way the group could
reach a position that perfectly met everyone’s interest.
Avri Doria commented personally for the record:
"while I have come to accept this Number 6 because the majority of the
people in the group did accept it, I am still very concerned about how
ICANN can actually create fair processes dealing with morality when
morality is such a broad subject. And I just wanted to reiterate that.
So even though I have accepted it because the rough consensus was there
and as a chair, accept it, personally, I still find it very difficult to
understand how we’ll do it."
Recommendation 7
Applicants must be able to demonstrate their technical capability to run
a registry operation for the purpose that the applicant sets out.
No comments
Recommendation 8
Applicants must be able to demonstrate their financial and
organisational operational capability.
No comments
Recommendation 9
There must be a clear and pre-published application process using
objective and measurable criteria.
No comments
Recommendation 10
There must be a base contract provided to applicants at the beginning of
the application process.
No comments
Recommendation 11
[Replaced with Recommendation 20 and Implementation Guideline P and
inserted into Term of Reference 3 Allocation Methods section]
Recommendation 12
Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be established prior to
the start of the process.
No comments
Recommendation 13
Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of
demand is clear.
No comments
Recommendation 14
The initial registry agreement term must be of a commercially reasonable
length.
No comments
Recommendation 15
There must be renewal expectancy.
No comments
Recommendation 16
Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies and adopt new
Consensus Policies as they are approved.
No comments
Recommendation 17
A clear compliance and sanctions process must be set out in the base
contract which could lead to contract termination.
No comments
Recommendation 18
If an applicant offers an IDN service, then ICANN's IDN guidelines[28]
must be followed.
There were comments on the public comment list pertaining to this
recommendation.
Recommendation 19
Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering
domain names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars.
The Chinese registrar in the public comments suggested that it was not a
good idea to use ICANN accredited registrars only:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00049.html
Chuck Gomes commented that the registry community and some public
comments articulated clear concerns relating to small registries only,
suggesting that an exception could be made for them. Chuck went on to
comment that in an effort to support the rough consensus process, the
registries would support the total package including this recommendation
in spite of the fact that they did not get what they wanted.
Tony Harris commented that the Chinese registrar
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00055.html
made a valid a point because new TLDs combined with IDNs in regions
where there are no ICANN accredited registrars would require other
options in the development of new TLDs.
Avri Doria commented that an implication of recommendation 19 could be a
possible review of the registrar accreditation processes, costs and
eventual barriers to accrediting registrars in non-developed areas.
Chuck Gomes expressed empathy for the Chinese registrar and others in
similar situations and supported a review of accreditation requirements
to assure that they adequately meet the needs of regions sparsely
populated by registrars.
Kurt Pritz commented that ICANN had undertaken coaching new registries
to acquaint them with ways in which they could satisfy the registrar
requirements. ICANN, in the past couple of years has held outreach
meetings, the most recent being in Hong Kong with a large number of
registrar representatives from Asian and other countries.
Kurt was optimistic that in the implementation of recommendation 19,
ICANN would facilitate the implementation of new registrars in thinly
registrar-populated regions.
Adrian Kinderis repeated former comments that the recommendation tried
to be all-encompassing and combined two distinct channels
1. Registries should use ICANN accredited registrars
2. Registries must use a registrar
If broken down, it could address the issue that if registrars were used,
they must be be ICANN accredited or as a registry, if it was decided to
use a registrar, then they should be ICANN accredited.
Adrian added that from a registrar point of view it would be a problem
going forward because it could rule out potential new TLDs.
Avri Doria commented that while there was discussion at the committee
level after Adrian joined the committee, no changes were made to the
recommendation.
Chuck Gomes confirmed that registrars had the option of offering which
ever TLDs they wished and that this was one of the rationales behind the
registry’s concern, because some TLDs business models were too weak for
registrars to support, thus registries were at the mercy of the
registrars who justifiably might not be interested in providing any
support at all for the new TLD.
Adrian Kinderis acknowledged that the Registry Constituency’s support of
Recommendation 19 was as a part of the “total package” as reflected in
Chuck Gomes’ comments on the call and not potentially of Recommendation
19 in isolation. The Registrars Constituency, having helped author the
recommendation completely support Recommendation 19 in its entirety.
Adrian Kinderis also made comment that he believed that no other
constituencies or groups within the gNSO had really thought about the
ramifications of Recommendation 19 and as such it is only the Registry
Constituency and the Registrar Constituency that could comment with any
authority. In this circumstance, because of the lack of understanding,
Adrian Kinderis also pointed out that the Registry Constituency was “on
a hiding to nothing” if it spoke against the recommendation which was an
unfortunate position.
Avri Doria confirmed that the current discussion was noted in the
discussion in the report under recommendation 19 and that there was
ongoing dialogue between registrars and registries where new agreements
may come on line that would change the condition for the recommendation.
Alan Greenberg commented that because existing registries and registrars
might be willing to accept the recommendation, did not factor in that it
concerned potential new TLDs in areas where they may be no registrars
and no registries and it would be a no-win situation for a geographic
TLD in an area where there were no registrars.
Kurt Pritz commented that the accredited registrars operated through a
contract with ICANN and that provided certain protection for
registrants. Current debate is taking place that is strengthening
protection for registrants through making changes to the RAA and making
registrars more responsive to the needs of the user such as addressing
small registries and amending their agreement to allow for graduated
sanctions. Replacing this with another model would require deeper
discussion and reflection.
Avri Doria suggested that when it came to the vote, recommendation 19
could be voted on separately if councillors so wished.
Recommendation 20
An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines that there
is substantial opposition to it from a significant portion of the
community to which the string may be explicitly or implicitly targeted.
Liz Williams drew Council's attention to where the discussion of
Recommendation 20 was to be found, that is in the Terms of Reference
Three - Allocation Methods and that Recommendation 19 was to be found in
the Terms of Reference Four - Contractual Conditions and was the last in
the flow of the recommendations through the report.
Robin Gross reiterated an objection to recommendation 20, just as for
recommendation 6, largely because of the harmful impact to freedom of
expression that these recommendations still contained.
Particularly, the NCUC finds Recommendation 20 to have unpredictable,
non-transparent criteria. The NCUC is concerned because it lacks
objectivity and its advantages established institutions and industry
incumbents at the expense of start up and non-commercial users.
Unfortunately, Number 6 and Number 20 unravel all the other attempts and
all the other recommendations that propose predictable and objective
criteria.
" So, based on the harmful impact of freedom of expression, I’m inclined
to vote against the entire report based upon Recommendations 20 and 6. "
Mawaki Chango commented given the definition provided for 'community'
and for 'explicit and implicit target' Council needed to define what was
a 'TLD that was targeted to a community' in order to help the community
understand what TLD would not be included in the category of TLD
applications that explicitly or implicitly targeted a community.
Avri Doria commented that there was no requirement that a TLD be
explicitly targeted towards the community and there may well be TLD
applications that do not specifically target a community.
Chuck Gomes cited as an example that if .Berlin was proposed but the
proposer did not state that it was targeting the members of the Berlin
communities around the world, there would still seem to be an implicit
targeting of that community.
Mike Rodenbaugh asked what would happen in the event that a community
was targeted in the original application, then they changed their
business model, as has been the case in several of the country code TLDs
to date.
Should there be a promise that the applicant makes that they would stick
to their intention to target a community for a certain amount of time?
Tony Harris commented and questioned that with sponsored TLD
applications, there could be requirements which would have to be respected.
Alan Greenberg reiterated previous comments, giving dot China as an
example, whether it would refer to the country or pottery and believed
the answer was, that the contractual agreements included the
applications as part of its documentation, and they are held largely to
that, although business model changes could be accommodated.
Kurt Pritz commented that it was a complex issue that had not yet been
settled.
The way the recommendations were written to staff indicated that the
implementation should include an ability for the applicant, in case of a
string contention, to show that the string representing a community
brings some value to the domain name space and that it should be
considered in a string contention.
On the other hand, it is not envisaged that ICANN should police a string
or a TLD to ensure that it would continue to dedicate itself towards
that community. ICANN's function lies in writing contracts and seeing
that businesses are launched
Adrian Kinderis commented on the definition of gTLD and that the premise
of the entire document fell under the banner of gTLD.
Chuck Gomes commented that historically, the definition of the gTLD,
included both sTLDs and unsponsored TLDs. In fact in the registry
constituency, has divided its members into those two categories.
In the current round a specific sTLD category is not being suggested and
old sTLD are still considered gTLD. A gTLD is not a ccTLD in the
broadest definition of the term. There is no requirement to be sponsored
in this round.
Adrian Kinderis confirmed that a supported or non supported community
could equally apply for a gTLD.
Mike Rodenbaugh expressed the concern and asked what would be the role
of ICANN in the case of an applicant with a sponsored community,
applying to ICANN for a gTLD, ICANN granting the application, and then
the applicant essentially changing its business model completely. For
example, if dot Cat became a TLD for actual feline cat owners, instead
of Catalan speakers.
Mike Rodenbaugh commented that there was a difference between policing
and acting on complaints.
Kurt Pritz commented that the sponsoring community was free to arrive at
an agreement with the registry sponsor or the registry itself. And in
order to support that registry and have an agreement between them, that
would be a form of guarantee for them that the registry operations would
continue to support the original intent of the sponsored community
represented TLD.
Alan Greenberg commented that Kurt's comment was different from what
came out in the committee discussions, that it was acknowledged at that
point that ICANN was not going to police but could, since the original
application was part of the contract, react to complaints, which was
very different from policing and very different from what Kurt had said
that that a separate contract would be required between the two bodies
if the sponsored organization wants to try to enforce anything.
Robin Gross commented it was important to leave room for innovation In
the domain name space. For a domain name to be registered for one
purpose, and then used for an entirely different purpose was perfectly
lawful as long as there was not any kind of broader misrepresentation
for which there would be legal recourse anyway.
Avri Doria called for comments on the Implementation Guidelines to be
found in the Summary - Principles, Recommendations and Implementation
Guidelines
Avri Doria clarified that input from the discussion, with regard to the
guidelines, could be added in the report but wording would not be changed.
Liz Williams confirmed that a full analysis of the public comments
including Mawaki Chango's comment on paragraph H, line T in the
Implementation Guidelines on page 22 of the Report Part A and all the
other comments would be included for the board report.
There would also be an opportunity to raise issues at the new gTLD
workshop during the Los Angeles meetings.
Mike Rodenbaugh requested clarification on paragraph I
"An applicant granted a TLD string must use it within a fixed timeframe
which will be specified in the application process."
It was clarified that the guideline referred to a timeframe.
Avri Doria called for a vote on all the recommendations as a block,
unless there was a proposed and seconded a motion which obtained a
majority vote in favor of separating out any question, any
recommendation or any set of recommendations for a separate and prior
vote. There could be more than one motion for separation.
Norbert Klein, seconded by Robin Gross proposed a motion to separate
recommendation 6 and recommendation 20 as a unit for a separate vote.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote on the motion.
Vote in favour: Robin Gross, Mawaki Chango, Norbert Klein, Jon Bing
Total number of votes in favour: 4
Vote against: Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina
Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Sophia Bekele
(each holding one vote),
Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes against: 17
Abstention: Tom Keller (holding 2 votes)
Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes,
Ross Rader.
The motion did not carry.
Mawaki Chango proposed a motion of separating Recommendation 2 from the
rest of the recommendations.
There was no second for the motion, thus there was no vote.
Avri Doria seconded by Tony Harris proposed the motion:
The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out
in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation
on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.
Avri Doria called for a roll call vote.
Vote in favour:
Mike Rodenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Ute Decker, Kristina Rosette, Tony
Harris, Greg Ruth, Avri Doria, Jon Bing, Sophia Bekele (each holding one
vote),
Tom Keller, Adrian Kinderis, Cary Karp, Edmon Chung, Chuck Gomes (each
holding 2 votes)
Total number of votes in favour 19
Vote against:
Robin Gross 1 vote
Abstain:
Cyril Chua, Norbert Klein, Mawaki Chango (3 votes)
Council members absent who did not vote: Philip Sheppard, Tony Holmes,
Ross Rader. (4 votes)
The motion carried with a supermajority vote as defined in the ICANN
bylaws, section 16
http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-28feb06.htm#AnnexA
Councilor's comments on the voting:
Votes in favour
Mike Rodenbaugh:
"The business constituency, as we’ve said in our recent public comments,
have some pretty serious concerns about what will happen in new TLDs. We
think that these recommendations do not address those concerns at all,
but we have been actively participating in this process now for two years.
We feel like this forum, perhaps, wasn’t the best forum to deal with
those concerns about abusive registrations since they need to deal with
existing TLDs as well.
We’re hopeful that our participation and our acceptance of these
recommendations will result in Council and ICANN taking seriously our
issues about abusive registrations in existing and new TLDs, and in the
interest of consensus, we will support these recommendations."
Kristina Rosette:
"Support with the observation that there appears to be a logical
inconsistency between on the one hand including Recommendations 2 and 3,
but on the other hand refusing to recommend to new TLD applicants that
they provide rights protection mechanisms."
Votes against
Robin Gross:
" I vote against the report largely because of the harmful impact on
freedom of expression that Recommendations Number 6 and 20, the
noticeable lack of legitimate authority for ICANN to adjudicate people’s
rights has not gone unnoticed in this process, so I vote against the
report."
Abstentions
Norbert Klein:
"I will abstain, but I hope that all the discussion which went on will
be also forwarded to the board."
Mawaki Chango:
"I abstain because I am in favor of introducing new gTLDs and I would
have loved to support this policy. But I still have a substantial issues
with some of the recommendations namely the Recommendation 2. "
Decision 1:
The GNSO Council supports the 20 recommendations, as a whole, as set out
in the Final Report of the ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organisation
on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm
going forward to the ICANN Board.
--
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat - ICANN
gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|