ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:40:29 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <C62F4EF4.14D45%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcnS2WMmeRCQyxNtvk+DWxGk2H7OcwAEHXaAAAe7hcYAAIGkkQAPuzFA
  • Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

I can't support this letter.  Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day 
F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language.  Given these 
contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send 
the letter and note in it that I have abstained.

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

        Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon's 
comments into account.
        Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » 
<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

                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.
                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 
                        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.
                        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 
Council's Friday deadline and considered my draft "good to go", 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.
                        Stéphane Van Gelder 

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