RE: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
I inserted some suggested edits, comments and questions that are highlighted in
the attached file.
Chuck
________________________________
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
Attachment:
GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V3 with Gomes edits.doc
|