<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
- To: "Stéphane Van Gelder" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:19:02 -0400
- In-reply-to: <DCF55B13-AB77-4E39-8E41-DD5D05F5A040@indom.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <CC3F10BB.9445%alina.syunkova@icann.org> <DCF55B13-AB77-4E39-8E41-DD5D05F5A040@indom.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stephane,
Just a brief comment, NOT specifically related to
the IGO issue (where I am not sure if it applies).
My understanding is that setting GNSO policy is
not synonymous with the GNSO's PDP process. The
PDP process clearly required if we are setting
formal Consensus Policy which will alter
contracted party contracts or if we want to
compel the Board to implement a GNSO decision
(short of 2/3 of the board vetoing). It is far
less clear to me that policy outside of those
cases needs the formal PDP process, but rather just a majority vote of Council.
I suspect this may not be a universally held
view, in which case it would be good to get some clarity from ICANN staff.
Alan
At 02/08/2012 06:29 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Councillors,
Please find attached a letter sent by the UN to
the GAC Chair and myself on the protection of
IGO names in the DNS, as part of the new gTLD programme.
As this is the latest in a long line of
correspondence sent to ICANN on the matter, I
feel increasingly strongly that the GNSO Council
should be providing clearer responses to the
question of the protection of IGO names that it
has done so far. I am not advocating any
specific direction for that response, merely
suggesting that any response might be desirable
at this time, rather than no response.
As we all know, substantial work has been
undertaken on the question of the IOC and RC
names, culminating in a recommendation being
sent to the Board. It is therefore clear that,
from a GNSO point of view, the issue has been
handled through our normal processes as part of
the bottom-up PDP that is the mainstay of ICANN.
As has always been my focus, I am keen to avoid
any potential attempts at circumventing the
GNSO's PDP processes. As I am not aware of any
formal response the GNSO has provided to the
IGOs, I wonder if one would be appropriate and
would like to have the Council's opinion on
this. I would also appreciate getting Jeff's
opinion, as Chair of the IOC/RC DT.
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
INDOM Group NBT France
----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director
Group NBT
Début du message réexpédié :
De : Alina Syunkova
<<mailto:alina.syunkova@xxxxxxxxx>alina.syunkova@xxxxxxxxx>
Objet : Received: UN Letter to ICANN requesting
exclusion of IGO names from gTLD registration
Date : 2 août 2012 01:58:35 HAEC
Ã? : Heather Dryden
<<mailto:heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx>heather.dryden@xxxxxxxx>,
"<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx"
<<mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc : Diane Schroeder
<<mailto:diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>diane.schroeder@xxxxxxxxx>
Dear Heather and Stephane,
Attached, please find the letter (3 pages) from
UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs,
Patricia O'Brien, dated 26 July 2012, which
arrived at the ICANN office in Los Angeles
today. It is addressed to both of you.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
-- Alina Syunkova
Board Support Coordinator
ICANN
Mob.: +1 (310) 913-8972
Skype: alina.syunkova.icann
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|