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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

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?
a.

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

> Avri,
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> > 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]
> > >
> > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may09-en.htm
> > >
> > > 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
> > > (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08
> > > 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,
> > > http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf
> > > [PDF, 69K].
> > >
> > > The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009 and
> > > which will now be published 29 May, 2009.
> > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > Glen de Saint Géry
> > > GNSO Secretariat
> > > gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > http://gnso.icann.org