Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Kristina,

Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be
nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.

Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose
some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT,
you may be able to agree on.

Let me know if that helps.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 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
>>>> 
>