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 18:22:36 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <C62FBDD9.14E7B%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcnS2WMmeRCQyxNtvk+DWxGk2H7OcwAEHXaAAAe7hcYAAIGkkQAPuzFAAADLQPkAAAVWkA==
  • Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

Hi Stephane,
1.  If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an 
obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the 
IPC.  I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour 
deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20).  
2.  It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated 
as any other objector.  As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, 
specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from 
participating in the objection process.
3.  The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List.  It's not a reserved 
names list and would not be free to trdemark owners.  Nonetheless, I can't 
support the current textual reference to the GAC's  proposal.
4.  The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my 
support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT 
Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter 
would result in my supporting it.  I have no objection to the letter noting 
that I have abstained.  That would allow the letter to be submitted and still 
note that I have  not supported it.  It seems like a good compromise to me.


        From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO
        Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
        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.
        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 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  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  
                                        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 >>>