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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then 
shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting with 
the GAC.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
> 
> 
> 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.pd
> >>> f)
> >>> [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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>