Additional information related to the use of geographic names in new GTLDs (further to my GNSO report included in our upcoming ALAC meeting agenda) Alan
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:06:55 -0700 From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz@icann.org> Subject: [council] Council meeting: New gTLD Update To: Council GNSO <council@gnso.icann.org>
Council Members:
Thank you for the opportunity on last week's Council call to provide information regarding the current state of implementation planning for the GNSO's new gTLD policy recommendations. I thought I would take few minutes of your time to reiterate some of the points made during our discussion and indicate possible paths for Council and community discussion.
As you may recall, one of the items described during the Council call was a recent discussion with the GAC to obtain a better understanding of the issues raised in their policy advice to the ICANN Board: "GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs." In that meeting (and earlier ones in Delhi and Paris), GAC members provided some detail as to the expectations of governments and the possible protections to be afforded to geographical names in the new gTLD application and evaluation process.
As a result of those consultations, ICANN will post two documents. The first will be a letter from Paul Twomey to GAC Chair Janis Karklins that: (1) repeats back the meeting discussion points in order to ensure understanding; (2) provides a potential model for going ahead with some of the protections the government representatives are requesting; and (3) describes areas where requested protections would be problematic to implement or enforce. The second document, for public comment, review and modification, is the upcoming draft of the new gTLD "RFP" - the guidebook that will be provided to potential applicants. The RFP will also describe some of those potential protections.
Those documents are being presented for public discussion and do not represent a final implementation model.
The documents are intended to highlight discrepancies between the report of the GNSO Reserved Names working group and the GAC advice to the Board by describing potential implementation details. I.e., creating potential operational processes brings to light more clearly issues for implementation discussion. They will inform a discussion in Cairo where there will be opportunity for additional consultations with the GAC and the GNSO.
The draft RFP will be posted and discussed in Cairo, and will be modified through public dialogue. It is planned that the draft RFP will be revised and posted again before a final version is posted for ICANN Board approval. The Board will be informed by this upcoming dialogue as it considers the final implementation model of the completed and approved GNSO policy recommendation for approval.
Sorry this took so long to describe (I thought the note would be shorter.) I hope the intent and meaning are clear. Denise or I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thanks for your time & regards,
Kurt
Kurt Pritz