Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:51:47 +0200
- In-reply-to: <F3BEEA91-9E4A-47C4-BE69-18F6268F9F0C@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcngdV82p1z64TJPzkGUNSZxjNGBrw==
- Thread-topic: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
- User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so?
Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> As I mentioned in the call yesterday, I personally argue that the
> GNSO and GAC are _not_ in agreement on the reservation of names at
> the 2nd level and that the GAC letter is mistaken in this asumption.
> In a conversation with Janis Karklins after he received the letter and
> asked me if the GAC could so assume, I answered that it _could not_.
> I went on to point out that the only meaning that could be taken from
> our not explicitly discussing the reservation of names at the second
> level was that we had not come to full consensus on this yet and
> discussions were still ongoing on the GNSO council's position on this
> subject. I can only assume that I was not clear enough or explicit
> enough in my comments to him.
> I believe that it is important to reiterate that the GNSO still
> supports its supermajority decision in 2007 on the policy
> recommendation that emerged from the bottom-up process and that the
> GNSO council viewed any deviations from those policy recommendations
> with concern, even in cases where it did not make an explicit
> consensus based public statement.
> On 29 May 2009, at 10:32, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
>> [To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org]
>> [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org]
>> [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]
>> GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
>> 28 May 2009
>> On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF, 72K]
>> responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability to
>> implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC Principles
>> regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The letter
>> recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in three
>> internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the second
>> level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However, other
>> issues relating to geographic names at the top level and the
>> potential misuse of the respective names at the second level
>> requires further discussion.
>> The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board
>> resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March, 2009
>> seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve the
>> outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection of
>> geographic names at the second level
>> and http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pdf)
>> [PDF, 245K].
>> The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24 April
>> 2009 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf
>> [PDF, 95K].
>> On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the proposal
>> outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009,
>> [PDF, 69K].
>> The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009 and
>> which will now be published 29 May, 2009.
>> Glen de Saint Géry
>> GNSO Secretariat