[council] Re: New gTLD Geographical Names

[Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck:

Thank you for your thoughtful note. As a start, I have discussed this issue set 
with David Olive who also understands the points you are making. David 
indicated that a discussion with leadership of the pertinent Supporting 
Organizations and Advisory Committees might be the next step: to determine how 
best to work toward consistent treatment of geographical names while continuing 
to pursue the policy development and implementation work now occurring in IDNs 
and gTLDs.

Regards,

Kurt





On Jun 8, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:


Kurt,

I am writing this message in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO Council but want 
to say up front that it has not been approved by the Council.  As you can see I 
have cc’d the Council.

As you know, as a part of the New gTLD PDP, the GNSO Reserved Names Working 
Group (RN-WG) spent considerable time considering the issues of reserved names 
in the introduction of new gTLDs and the RN-WG recommendations were approved by 
a super-majority of the GNSO Council as a part of the overall new gTLD report 
that the Board later approved.  In the long new gTLD implementation process 
that has followed many changes have been proposed to those recommendations; in 
particular, quite a few significant changes were added in Draft Applicant 
Guidebook, version 4.

You are aware that significant effort went into the GNSO reserved names 
recommendations; a lot of time and effort was devoted to debate issues of 
concern for multiple interest groups including those outside the GNSO such as 
the GAC and the ccNSO, and steps were taken to address those.  Since that time, 
there has been a steady chipping away of the GNSO recommendations, particularly 
with regard to geographical names.

The purpose of this message is not to suggest that the changes are not worth 
considering, but rather to point out that it is critical that the GNSO be 
involved in the process of evaluating those proposed changes.  Geographical 
gTLD names may have an impact on ccTLD operators and on governments, so  the 
ccNSO and the GAC should certainly contribute to the process.  At the same 
time, there appears to recently be a trend toward deferring any issues with 
regard to geographical gTLD names primarily to the ccNSO and the GAC.

The RN-WG believed that there is reasonable justification for accommodating 
some of the geographical name concerns of ccTLDs and governments in the 
introduction of new gTLDs as can be seen in the recommendations that were made 
(i.e., reserving 2-character LDH gTLDs, giving governments the standing to file 
disputes, etc.).  The RN-WG also recognized that there are competitive issues 
between ccTLDs and gTLDs and that there may be cases where Internet users needs 
might be better met by geographical gTLD than a geographical ccTLD.

My point is this: It is not sufficient to refer geographical gTLD name issues 
just to the ccNSO and the GAC.  They can certainly be a part of the ccNSO IDN 
PDP, and be a part of GAC discussions, but not at the exclusion of the GNSO.

Chuck Gomes