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

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

As I previously communicated, I am supportive of doing a letter but more 
importantly I think that we should make sure that we have a well understood 
position on this issue in advance of our meeting with the GAC on Sunday in 
Sydney.  That does not mean that we have to have full consensus on one view but 
rather that we know where we stand on this issue whether it is one view or 
multiple views and that we are prepared to articulate, defend and discuss our 
view(s) with GAC members in the meeting.  To the extent that we can provide our 
view(s) in writing to the GAC before the meeting, I think that would be helpful 
but, because they want documents three weeks in advance, that may not be 
possible.  At the same time, I am sure that being able to distribute a written 
document on our view(s) just before or at some time after the meeting would be 
appreciated.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:17 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
> 
> 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
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>