ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC

  • To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:38:37 +0200
  • In-reply-to: <3BA081BEFB35144DBD44B2F141C2C727068E868B@cbiexm04dc.cov.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcnS2WMmeRCQyxNtvk+DWxGk2H7OcwAEHXaAAAe7hcYAAIGkkQAPuzFAAADLQPkAAAVWkAAWTiex
  • Thread-topic: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for providing this clarification which is really helpful in
understanding your position.

Let me start with your last point. I do agree what you suggest is a good
compromise, although I would defer to Avri to decide whether things can be
done that way and the letter can be sent with your abstention noted. However
I would also like to add that I think the point you raise about not having
enough time to consult with your constituents was addressed by Avri in an
email sent yesterday. The gist of which was that, in such matters as sending
a letter on behalf of the GNSO Council, councillors are acting in their own
capacity as members of the Council. I fully agree with this position as a
general principle. I think councillors should consult with their
constituents whenever possible, but I also think they are elected to act and
they carry the trust of their constituents. I think the position we take
when we write a letter such as the one we are working on at the moment is a
Council position. I don¹t think that these efforts should be blocked or
hindered because there isn¹t enough time to go back to the constituencies. I
think that¹s what our constituents expect of us: to make informed and
thought-out judgment calls when we need to.

On your other points, I don¹t think this letter is saying that governments
should simply be treated like any other objector. What I was trying to say
in my draft (but this may not have been well written, don¹t forget I¹m
French ;-) ) is that issues of national sovereignty notwithstanding,
governments should not be granted a de facto privileged right to veto
everything before anyone else. It is perfectly clear that governments should
be allowed to protect their respective countries¹ national resources, and
that includes their names on the Internet. Once again, this has already been
built into the DAG and the new gTLD program. What in my mind is less
acceptable is that governments should be given all-conquering veto power
over any string their might take objection to, at both the top and the
second level.

My understanding of what is going on inside the IRT may be incomplete and
you undoubtedly have a better vision of this than I do, but I don¹t see any
part of the letter which goes against the IRT¹s proposals as I understand
them. However I understand your reservations (no pun intended) to any
specific wording which could be construed as being against reserved lists.

I see in another email Chuck has suggested some edits. May I suggest that I
include these edits in a modified draft, which would also try to alleviate
your concerns about reserved lists? I will send that to the list asap.

Let me end by saying that I see our duty as GNSO councillors to ensure that
the new gTLD program is rolled out in a timely and fair manner. This program
stems from extensive work by the GNSO Council and Constituencies. Work in
which all parties were involved, including governments and including IP. I
fully agree with the need to take the time to get things right. But if the
intent is to artificially slow the process down after there has been
GNSO-wide approval for it, then I take exception to that. And I feel that
for governments to ask for complete veto power at top and second level may
slow the process down in a way which might seem artificial, as it is clear
such a proposal would not be acceptable to many other parties.

Thanks and sorry for the long email.


Le 13/05/09 00:22, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 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 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

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