ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

I have a slightly different view of this and question what?s to be gained
from sending another letter to the GAC at this stage when we?ll meet with
them quite soon?


As Avri pointed out, ideally the process should include time for
Constituencies to comment before it?s sent and that means it?s only likely
to go just prior to the Sydney meeting. With many participants in the GAC
and GNSO leaving home a few days earlier to travel, that?s a pretty tight


Overall, I?d tend to support Chuck?s suggestion that we spend that time
developing talking points for the face to face session.





From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olga Cavalli
Sent: 30 May 2009 02:49
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names


I think this letter is a good idea.

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...


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
> 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


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