ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names


If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could.
Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would
need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies
that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in
terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.

Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the
interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO
position and that  except for specific issues where the GNSO council has
published an explicit  consensus statement to the contrary, it remains
interested in seeing that the Policy  recommendations made in 2007 for
new gTLDs be implemented.

Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?


On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:


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]
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09- en.pdf
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

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