Re: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:22:16 +0200
- In-reply-to: <B7ACC01E42881F4981F66BA96FC14957032DE512@WIC001MITEBCLV1.messaging.mit>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Acnee71iGFoPf/QAR9msolGCQXJktAAAO9igABXizBwAIUc5cAAFBP/R
- Thread-topic: [council] Regarding joint SO/AC initiatives
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
While I see the logic of what you are suggesting, I'm not sure I understand
how you link that to the joint SO/AC sessions.
Forgive me if I simply misunderstood what you are saying, but are you
suggesting that these topics be handled in those sessions?
Le 28/05/09 08:22, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
> Hello Stéphane,
>> How about joint SO/AC initiatives (there was a lot of talk on
>> this after the
>> sessions held in Mexico, but as they were after our dinner
>> with the board,
>> there wasn't much opportunity to discuss with the board)?
> With respect to two of the topics suggested by Avri related to new gTLDs - ie
> the IRT and geographic names, it would be useful to think about how to work
> more effectively together with ALAC and GAC in particular.
> On geographic names - the Board sees various letters exchanged between the
> GAC, GNSO and the Board on the topic - and geographic names have received
> attention at several of the recent Board meetings and workshops. The topic
> is moving forward - but perhaps it is time to have some smaller joint working
> groups to review the issue further and see what new compromises can be reached
> - particularly at the second level.
> On geographic names the main positions seem to be:
> - GAC wants a list of names protected where the Government gets to approve (or
> provide a letter of non-objection) registration of a domain name
> - the GNSO suggests are more general dispute resolution process - although
> nothing has been proposed at the second level as far as I know other than UDRP
> At the top level there does seem to be agreement with respect to names on an
> ISO country list, at the second level there are many more concerns as country
> names are routinely used within existing TLDs (gTLDs and ccTLDs). With
> respect to new TLDs there seems to be many quite reasonable uses of country
> names (e.g countryname.brand for country specific websites, or
> countryname.sport, or countryname.news etc). It could be a burden on
> Governments themselves if they need to approve use of these names. On the
> other hand countries maybe concerned about sites like countryname.war, or
> countryname.hate etc. Maybe where a top level domain string has a likelihood
> to give rise to concerns around morality and public order when combined with a
> countryname that the GAC could require an approval process for registration of
> that second level domain. So further work on this topic may be best handled
> by a smaller group that considers a range of appropriate and inappropriate
> uses, and see!
> ks to achieve a reasonable compromise between protecting against mis-use and
> encouraging new uses of the DNS.
> Bruce Tonkin