<<<
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,
Sure.
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
proposals.
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.
K
________________________________
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.
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 Edmon's 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 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.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|