February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] You can't hear us anymore
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

I have also lost the Webcast now. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] You can't hear us anymore From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 10:55 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org>

1 0

Regarding Board motion on tasting
by Bruce Tonkin Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hello All, Just to be clear the Board has not "decided" to introduce the fee, but the Board has asked it to be considered in the budget process. There is a whole process around approving the budget, and the staff are seeking public input on the budget. The registrars also need to approve the method of charging so they can be invoiced directly by ICANN, rather than ICANN charging fees to registries instead. So there are a few steps - and I would expect that registrars and registries may provide further feedback on the budget process. "THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee. " Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

You can't hear us anymore
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

1 0

FW: [ccnso-idncctld] IDNC meeting time & room Thursday 14th
by Edmon Chung Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

From: owner-ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-idncctld@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gabriella Schittek Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:48 PM To: ccnso-idncctld(a)icann.org Subject: [ccnso-idncctld] IDNC meeting time & room Thursday 14th Dear all, The next IDNC WG meeting will take place on Thursday 14th, from 14.00 – 16.00 in the Sheesh Mahal room. Thanks, Gabi ---------- Gabriella Schittek ccNSO Secretariat gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] Conference is up but barely understandable...
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Cyril, go to this link: http://delhi.icann.org/event/2008/02/13/day/all/all/1 Then click on the heading in the first box on that page that says "Open GNSO Council Meeting." Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Conference is up but barely understandable... From: cyrilchua(a)atmdlaw.com.sg Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 10:42 pm To: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org Tim, would you be able to send me the link to the transcript? Avri's voice was terribly distorted at my end. Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> Sent by: To owner-council@gns "'Council GNSO'" o.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> cc 13/02/2008 12:38 Subject PM [council] Conference is up but barely understandable... Please respond to Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> ...I am continuing to use the Webcast as a result Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim(a)godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president(a)godaddy.com with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

1 0

Conference is up but barely understandable...
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

...I am continuing to use the Webcast as a result Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim(a)godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president(a)godaddy.com with any feedback. This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

3 2

Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by cyrilchua＠atmdlaw.com.sg Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hi Avri We need to maintain the consistency because we do not want similar factual disputes having different outcomes in gTLD and ccTLD. Kind regards, Cyril Chua Partner IP & Technology Group -------- Alban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP 39 Robinson Road #07-01, Robinson Point, Singapore 068911 Tel: (65) 6534 5266 / Fax: (65) 6223 8762 / DID: (65) 6428 9812 http://www.atmdlaw.com.sg -------- ALBAN TAY MAHTANI & DE SILVA LLP < This message (including attachments) contains privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not to take any action in reliance on it nor to disseminate, distribute, publish or copy this message. If you have received this message in error, please accept our apologies, delete all copies from your system and notify us at mail(a)atmdlaw.com.sg. Unless it relates to the official business of ATMD, any opinions or matters expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. > ----- Original Message ----- From: Avri Doria [avri(a)psg.com] Sent: 02/12/2008 05:41 PM ZE5B To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Hi, While it would be inconsistent with the new gTLD policy recommendations, I don't know if there is a necessity for consistency in this case as we are dealing with ccTLDs not gTLDs and we are dealing with significant expressions of a countries name or identity. So the conditions might be different. In terms of the statement I am not sure I know what Technical confusion is any more then I really understood what confusingly similar was. Are we saying it should not be visually or homographically similar,? I also wonder if there is another problem in this one. The name of a country in various representations will be similar to the name of the country in another representation - but in a sense that seems appropriate and not a problem. a. On 12 Feb 2008, at 16:28, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > That would be inconsistent with the recommendations made for new > gTLDs. We can't go back now and change what we already did. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org > ] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:53 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > How about: > "Strings that cause technical confusion should be avoided." > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Feb 12, 2008, at 1:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 Feb 2008, at 14:29, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> >>> **** THEREFORE, I propose that we amend our statement, so that >>> only "technical confusion" is the type of confusion that we deal >>> with. Otherwise, not only are we in contrast with legal norms, >>> we are also outside the scope of ICANN's authority. >> >> >> Can you suggest the exact wording change you are proposing? >> >> As with other suggested changes, I believe we can make if there are >> no objections. >> On the other hand, if there are objections, we may need to vote on >> this amendment before voting on the response itself. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > >

2 1

Tim's response regarding the third amendment
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

I thought this was supposed to be an interim solution. A fast track for existing ccTLDs. Agreeing to one so-called IDN ccTLD per 3166-1 entry, for which an IANA delegation exists, is very generous. Any others should wait for whatever PDP ensues to resolve it further. Tim

1 0

RE: [council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Tim Ruiz Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

The problem is that Government Policy changes. We should stick to one per 3166-1 entry. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 8:46 pm To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)psg.com> Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Tim, I am also concerned with the spawning of IDN ccTLDs, but I think it is prudent also to look at a reasonable approach for the cc side as well. I have already added in the part "AND governmental policy makes selecting a single string inappropriate", which I think provides adequate safe guard against the volume of TLDs. Also, this update actually does not change the general concept in the body of the document that already says: "These should be limited to one IDN ccTLD per ISO 3166-1country or territory, except in those cases where governmental policy makes selecting a single script impossible." Perhaps a slight tweak to make it a different sentence maybe better?: 9. There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and collisions due to variants. Where one script is used for multiple languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string in appropriate, one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per language may be considered. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:21 AM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: 'Council GNSO'; Edmon Chung > Subject: RE: [council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > I don't agree with this change. This is the slippery slope I am > concerned about. We started talking about one so-called IDN ccTLD per > ISO 3166-1 entry, now we're opening it up to any number. So India could > get 20 or so based on this new language? I am amazed that the registries > have agreed to this. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 7:03 pm > To: Edmon Chung <edmon(a)dotasia.org> > Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > > I agree that this is a good change. I was working on something > similar myself and this this is better wording then what I was coming > up with. > > thanks > > a. > > On 13 Feb 2008, at 01:17, Edmon Chung wrote: > > > > > fter some discussion at the Registries Constituency today, would > > like to make > > the following suggested edits to #9. > > > > The current wording: > > > > 9. There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per > > relevant script. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and > > collisions due > > to variants. > > > > > > Suggested edit: > > > > 9. There should be only one IDN ccTLD string per ISO 3166-1 entry per > > relevant script, except in those cases where one script is used for > > multiple > > languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single string > > inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and > > collisions due to > > variants. > > > > > > The rationale for the edit is to provide for the situation is for > > example in > > India where one script is used for multiple languages and the > > representation > > of "india" in those different languages using the same script may be > > different. > > > > We would have to make a change to the main body as well, mainly with > > regards > > to the response to: > > a) Should there similarly be only a single IDN ccTLD for a given > > script for > > each !%territory!& or can there be multiple IDN ccTLD strings? For > > example, > > should there be only one equivalent of .cn in Chinese script for > > China or .ru > > in Cyrillic for Russia? > > Proposed GNSO response: Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be > > only one > > string per ISO 3166-1 entry per relevant script. > > > > > > Suggested change to the proposed response: > > > > Yes, the GNSO believes that there should be only one string per ISO > > 3166-1 > > entry per relevant script., except in those cases where one script > > is used for > > multiple languages and governmental policy makes selecting a single > > string > > inappropriate. Measures must be taken to limit confusion and > > collisions due to > > variants. > > > > > > Edmon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

We can't hear you!
by Rosette, Kristina Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Kristina, Rita, Tim, Tom & Cyril

1 0