Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon¹s comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > Edmon, > > Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, > I am copying this to the Council list. > > I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone > objects. > > Thanks, > > Stéphane > > > Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > >> sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking >> so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable >> about it... >> >> you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and >> we feel it would be >> inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new >> contractual >> obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." >> >> I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in >> the s round, there is a clause: >> " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from >> time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all >> other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for >> registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related >> official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." >> >> What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO >> lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all >> related official languages" part. >> >> Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: >> "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct >> geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN >> may direct from time to time." >> >> Would like to suggest edits as follows: >> >> Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, >> especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We >> feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new >> contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. >> >> >> Edmon >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder >> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC >> >> Dear all, >> >> In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO >> Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. >> >> At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to >> this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response >> should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri >> informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by >> this Friday. >> >> In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted >> my draft to the team yesterday. >> >> The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday >> deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David >> Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft >> letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). >> >> Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like >> to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter >> to the GAC on Friday. >> >> My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - >> Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony >> Harris - Terry Davis William Drake. >> >> Best, >> >> Stéphane Van Gelder >> Attachment:
GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V3.doc
|