RE: [council] Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs

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

Thanks Olof.  I have a few questions.
 

1.      
        What does the last sentence in the third paragraph mean:
"Candidate implementation discussed models both complied with the 

        policy recommendations."?

2.      
        Under Technical Service Provider Qualification what does the
following bullet mean: "Classification societies could be helpful if the
accreditation approach is 

        pursued."   What are 'classification societies'?

3.      
        Under Country, territory and place names, my memory may be
faulty but I don't recall the following: "It is unclear whether GAC
views should trump other views and how to make a final determination
unless in full agreement."  I don't think there was ever support in the
original recommendations for the GAC trumping other views.  And I don't
recall a different conclusion in L.A.

4.      
        Also under Country, territory and place names, I don't remember
deciding the following: "Notification to governments/GAC should only be
for country names."  It seems that governments/GAC should be notified of
all proposed names just like everyone else, but their standing to object
would not be the same for names other than country names.  This seems to
be corrected four bullets later: "It is advisable to inform governments
about all strings applied for."

5.      
        Under String confusion, shouldn't the word 'may' be 'would' in
the following: "On questions, staff responded that an algorithm would
not have a deterministic role in the process and that string confusion
may be objection based or assessed in the initial evaluation, followed
by expert panel determination in the extended evaluation."

6.      
        As I have said repeatedly, the following under String confusion
is contrary to the GNSO recommendations: "Asked whether both the
algorithm and the panel would be kept to visual similarity, staff
responded that this was the current approach."  That approach may be
okay for the algorithm but it is not okay for the dispute process.

7.      
        Was there agreement to the following under String confusion:
"SLD holders should have standing to object against confusingly similar
strings to the TLD they are registered in."?  I didn't think so.

8.      
        It would be helpful to better understand the divergence
described as follows : "Divergence of views between Ry and BC
representatives were expressed regarding if, for example, .museum would
be granted an application for its string translated into Chinese."

Chuck Gomes


________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:18 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs


Dear all,
Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and
staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April.
 
Very best regards
 
Olof