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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think this letter is a good idea.
Olga

2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>

>
> Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she
> suggest?
> After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with
> the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter...
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> >
> > 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>