February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

RE: [council] #9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Tim Ruiz 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

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 > > > > > > > > > > >

2 1

Updated interest statement of Tim Ruiz
by Tim Ruiz 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

I am Vice President of Corporate Development and Policy for The Go Daddy Group, Inc. The Go Daddy Group companies include eight ICANN accredited registrars including GoDaddy.com, Inc. GoDaddy.com is a member of the Registrars Constituency of the GNSO and I am its Registered Representative. GoDaddy.com is a member of the dotMOBI Advisory Group (MAG). I represent GoDaddy.com on the MAG. I am on the MAG Steering Committee and have been appointed by the Steering Committee to represent the MAG on the dotMOBI Policy Advisory Board (PAB). The MAG and PAB, among other activities, are involved in recommending policy to mTLD, the dotMOBI Registry Operator. GoDaddy.com recently acquired a small interest in Afilias Limited for investment purposes. GoDaddy.com and Afilias USA recently formed a joint venture dba Alliance Registry, in which Afilias USA is the managing member and assumes authority and responsibility for all day-to-day registry operations. Go Daddy and Afilias also recently formed a joint venture with MEnet, a Montenegrin company. That joint venture, doMEn doo, was selected by the Government of Montenegro as the Registration Agent for the .me ccTLD. I currently represent Go Daddy on the Board of doMEn. GoDaddy.com is also a member of the United States Council for International Business (USCIB). The USCIB is a member of the Business Constituency of the GNSO. Our primary interest in the USCIB is the DNS and Internet Identifiers Working Group. GoDaddy.com was a founding Member of the Country Code 1 ENUM LLC. I represented GoDaddy.com on the Board of the LLC from Aug 2004 through Dec 2006, at which time GoDaddy.com withdrew from the LLC. In all my positions with the Go Daddy Group, or in the appointments noted above, my focus has been the development and promotion of registrar related business, products, and services. Tim Ruiz

1 0

#9 of Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Edmon Chung 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

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¡Š 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

2 1

Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Robin Gross 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Hi Mike, Actually, the UDRP makes my case: registrations are PERMITTED and only taken away AFTER-THE-FACT, when wrong doing has been shown. The point is not about "activation", but rather "registration". Sure, you can establish bad faith after a registration but before activation based on the facts and circumstances of the situation (registering a domain that includes a TM and then sending a letter to the TM owner saying if they want it they gotta pay you big bucks to get it). But it is still a USE based analysis, not something that can be determined before registration in order to deny a registration. Remember the Taubman v. Webfeats case [319 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003)]: "If [defendant's] use is commercial, then, and only then, do we analyze his use for a likelihood of confusion." The court continues: "Even if [defendant's] use is commercial speech, i.e., "in connection with the sale . . . or advertising of any goods or services," and within the jurisdiction of the Lanham Act, there is a violation only if his use also creates a likelihood of confusion among customers. 15 U.S.C. 1114(1). Moreover, the only important question is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the parties' goods or services. Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 877 (6th Cir. 2002). Under Lanham Act jurisprudence, it is irrelevant whether customers would be confused as to the origin of the websites, unless there is confusion as to the origin of the respective products. See also Daddy's Junky Music Stores, 109 F.3d at 280." This is just the first case that comes to mind. Briefly, here is another: Cline v. 1-888-PLUMBING, 146 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The court held that merely registering a domain name likely to be confused with a registered trademark was not enough to infringe upon the mark, as it was not a “use in commerce” of the mark. “In the context of domain names, parties encroach on a registrant’s rights under […] the Lanham Act not when they reserve a domain name […] but when they use it.” Id. at 369. **** 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. Thank you, Robin On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:54 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote: > There are plenty of UDRP decisions holding that domain names can be > registered in bad faith, even if not activated. The fact the > domain is registered in effort to extract money from TM owner, and/ > or deprives TM owner of ability to use the name, is enough. I am > pretty certain there are also US court precedents on that point at > least as well, and would bet they exist in other jurisdictions at > this point too. So, with respect, I think Professor Farley is > incorrect. ICANN’s scope of authority includes mitigation of > likelihood of consumer confusion in any sense, that was settled > with enactment and entrenchment of the UDRP as a purported remedy. > > Interested to hear more about the font idea, as I don’t immediately > see how that will help. > > Thanks, > Mike > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:36 AM > To: Chuck Gomes > Cc: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > Chuck, > > I agree with you that trademarks are only a subset of "confusingly > similar". The point is that trademarks are outside of the realm of > technical confusion, and only technical confusion should be > included within the "confusingly similar" issue since that is all > that is within ICANN's scope of authority. > > I disagree that international law says that domain names, without > any analysis of their use, can be considered confusingly similar. > Please remember the presentation that Professor Christine Haight > Farley, American University international trademark law expert, > gave to us in San Juan, where she attempted to explain this key > point in detail. > Her paper is online at: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2007/06/06/ > farley-legal-briefing/ > and the video of her presentation is at: http://www.keep-the- > core-neutral.org/node/31 > > It is a mistake for us to continue to expand trademark rights in > domain names beyond the scope of rights that trademark law > grants. So I can't support a GNSO position that does this. > > Another suggestion that was provided at our dinner table last night > was that a better way to deal with confusion caused by similar > script characters (such as the "paypal example") is by the > creation of new FONTS that make the characters more distinct and > thus eliminate this type of confusion through a software fix > (rather than by expanding trademark rights). I agree that we > should explore this approach. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Feb 11, 2008, at 4:00 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > > > Recommendation 2 (confusingly similar) does not necessarily relate > to trademarks although that could be a subset. The detailed > discussion we included for this was taken from international law > relating to trademarks but the intent was to apply the requirement > on broader basis, in particularly for existing gTLDs that do not > have any trade mark rights. > > Chuck > > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:50 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > The same issue was raised at my table by the board members. The > feeling was "if two countries are going to start a war over a > domain name, that is their problem. They must pick 1 name." I > think there is merit to this view. It was also mentioned that > Chinese is a script that is used by a large community in just about > EVERY country in the world, so does this mean every country gets a > script in Chinese? In the US alone, there are large language > communities for probably 10 scripts, giving the US 10 scripts under > our rule. I do not believe this is what we intended. > > And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with. In > particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be > confusingly similar" is misplaced. Only technical confusion is the > type that should be dealt with here, not general confusion. I > agree. This recommendation really does not make sense from a > trademark viewpoint (although that is how it is intended), since a > domain name, by itself, does not cause confusion, but only with > relation to how the domain is used. We are going well beyond > technical stability and trying to regulate other things that are > outside ICANN's authority. > > Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before > we vote on them. I found the feedback from the board to be > enormously useful and we should try to address their concerns > before voting. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > > I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented. > > At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another > table - there > was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language > group": "their government should decide to choose just one." > > I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/ > social/cultural > implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly > destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian > government > would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic > sections > of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed > as "not ICANN's problem." > > Norbert > > - > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 > From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> > To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Agreed. > Edmon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > Regards, > > Adrian Kinderis > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, > please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: > > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com > > Agreed. > Edmon > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > Regards, > > Adrian Kinderis > Managing Director > AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd > Level 8, 10 Queens Road > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 > Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com > Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com > > The information contained in this communication is intended for the > named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain > legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an > intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any > action > in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, > please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > Hi, > > At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive > summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's > concurrence" > > While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the > need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn > community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure. > > I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without > prior community concurrence" > > 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 > > > > > > > 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 > > > 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

4 8

ICANN POLICY UPDATE – 11 February 2008
by Denise Michel 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Attached are brief summaries of a number of Internet policy issues that are being addressed in the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure. This update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. Links to additional information are included in the attached document, and we encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community's work. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. This update will be posted on ICANN's website. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy ------------------------------------------------------------------ ICANN POLICY UPDATE – 11 February 2008 CONTENTS: 1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS 2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING 3. GNSO -- WHOIS 4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRY TRANSFER POLICY 5. GNSO -- LEADERSHIP/ELECTION 6. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs 7. CCNSO -- IANA WORKING GROUP 8. CCNSO -- PARTICIPATION WORKING GROUP 9. CCNSO -- WORK PLAN 10. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY 11. SSAC -- REPORTS AND STATEMENTS FOR NEW DELHI 12. AT-LARGE -- APRALO PRIORITIES 13. AT-LARGE -- NEW DELHI POLICY AGENDA 14. AT-LARGE -- PARTICIPATION

2 2

Revised Proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting
by Rosette, Kristina 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

All, Attached please find a revised proposed GNSO Council motion on domain tasting and redline that highlights the changes from the previous motion. The primary changes are: 1. Additional Whereas clauses to highlight how the design team followed the terms of reference; 2. Deletion of brackets around 10%; 3. Deletion of the "speculative registration language"; and 4. Addition of an "extraordinary circumstances" exemption that carries with it a reporting requirement. Some comments: I do not yet have the IPC's instructions on this text, but do not anticipate significant objections. I believe that is true for Mike, too. The bracketed language reflects Tim's objection. I have left the language in for discussion proposes. The reasoning for the reporting requirement is that if a registrar experiences such an extraordinary circumstance that it warrants exemption from the application of consensus policy then it seems reasonable to provide ICANN and the registrant community with the information that the registrar is seeking an exemption and, if it is granted, the basis for it. K <<02122008 revised DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-12-08 09_58.DOC>> <<redline 02122008 DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53-#.DOC>>

1 0

RE: AW: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Tim Ruiz 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

I don't agree completely. Either ICANN manages the root or it doesn't. My personal opinion is that any TLD entered into the ICANN managed root should all be done so under the same rules and conditions. I did not bust my behind for the last seven years to see all that we've built slowly go down the drain because the ccTLD name space overwhelms the gTLD space due to a more favorable competitive environment. I have no problem with the ccTLD space competing fiercly with the gTLD space, but it should be on an equal basis to the extent possible. Whether ICANN or anyone else likes to call it regulation or not, the fact is that the gTLD space is heavily regulated. The ccTLD space is not. That said, I feel that: 1. It is unlikely that we can stand in the way of one ccTLD-like IDN being allocated per ccTLD, nor should we try. However, the WHOLE community should be equally involved in the process that defines how that's done, not just the ccNSO. The fact that it is likely these new ccTLD-like IDNs will be operated under ccTLD rules, not gTLD rules is an argument FOR full and equal community involvement, not against it. 2. There needs to be a continual review of the results of such allocations and the effect on the supposed competitive environment that ICANN espouses to support in its bylaws. Such review very well may indicate that the relaxing of certain policies and regulations within the gTLD space, for both registries and registrars, is required to maintain an even playing field. Finally, all the FUD about split roots, independent roots, etc. is just that, FUD. That may very well happen regardless of what's done here. But ultimately, if that happens, consumer demand, user demand, money, whatever will eventually require they all work together somehow if they want to succeed long term. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AW: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report From: "Thomas Keller" <tom(a)1und1.de> Date: Tue, February 12, 2008 6:39 am To: "'Mike Rodenbaugh'" <mxrodenbaugh(a)yahoo.com>, "'Robin Gross'" <robin(a)ipjustice.org>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> I have to agree with Mike, I do not think that there is any way of keeping governments from having their countries name in the scripts used in their country (or likewise important to their country). Trying to impose or persuade them to have such "territorial TLDs"under a GNSO ICANN governed regime if they could have the liberty to set the rules by themselves does not seem to me a good use of our time. Lets not kid our self if i.e the USG decides out of whatever reasons that they want .USA in kanji script there is no way that a.) ICANN can keep them from doing so a.) that they would submit them self to the GNSO processes. That holds also true for the German and Cambodian or in fact every government in the world. Instead of getting in endless debates with the cc Community and the GAC about how many TLDs a country can have and what scripts it can be we should rather engage into discussions on how to come up with a "new " iso 3166 list or algorithm to make a clear distinction between cc and g. Best, tom Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Mike Rodenbaugh Gesendet: Montag, 11. Februar 2008 13:41 An: 'Robin Gross'; 'Council GNSO' Betreff: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report I would be fine with concept of an IDN ccTLD for any string that is a 'meaningful representation of a country name.' I understand there is work to define that and to provide a challenge procedure, but think that should not be very difficult. The toughest part I envision is to ensure that words that are languages can be gTLDs, i.e. .hebrew or ..korean in those scripts; even though .israel or .korea in those scripts would be proper ccTLDs. If ccNSO and GAC commit that they will not request any additional strings beyond representations of country names, then we should not stand in the way of those. In answer to Robin's question whether any/every country should get an IDN ccTLD in Chinese, I think that would be fine, just as they all have one in ASCII. Thanks, Mike From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 4:13 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report I see that my statement below has a typo that should be corrected on the issue of the number of scripts per country. I did not mean "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, ..." I meant, if two COMMUNITIES within a country are going to start a war over a domain name..." Further on this point, I don't think we should succumb to the threat, "if you don't give us what we want, we will kill each other". That does not strike me as the kind of principled argument we should bow to. Robin On Feb 10, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Robin Gross wrote: The same issue was raised at my table by the board members. The feeling was "if two countries are going to start a war over a domain name, that is their problem. They must pick 1 name." I think there is merit to this view. It was also mentioned that Chinese is a script that is used by a large community in just about EVERY country in the world, so does this mean every country gets a script in Chinese? In the US alone, there are large language communities for probably 10 scripts, giving the US 10 scripts under our rule. I do not believe this is what we intended. And a few other points were raised that need to be dealt with. In particular, the recommendation that "strings must not be confusingly similar" is misplaced. Only technical confusion is the type that should be dealt with here, not general confusion. I agree. This recommendation really does not make sense from a trademark viewpoint (although that is how it is intended), since a domain name, by itself, does not cause confusion, but only with relation to how the domain is used. We are going well beyond technical stability and trying to regulate other things that are outside ICANN's authority. Perhaps we should give more thought to our recommendations before we vote on them. I found the feedback from the board to be enormously useful and we should try to address their concerns before voting. Thanks, Robin On Feb 10, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented. At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - there was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language group": "their government should decide to choose just one." I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/social/cultural implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed as "not ICANN's problem." Norbert - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Agreed. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. Regards, Adrian Kinderis -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com Agreed. Edmon -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report The same issue was raised at our table Avri. I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Hi, At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's concurrence" While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure. I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without prior community concurrence" 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 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

1 0

Fwd: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Norbert Klein 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

I also agree with Avri's suggestion, where others already consented. At the table I was - and I later talking to people from another table - there was opposition to the "One IDNccTLD per one script per one language group": "their government should decide to choose just one." I was surprised about the lack of sensitivity on the political/social/cultural implications. I argued - as a example - saying that it would be highly destructive in the presently tense situation, if the Malaysian government would give preference to the Chinese over against the Indian ethnic sections of the society by allocating only one IDNccTLD, but this was dismissed as "not ICANN's problem." Norbert - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report Date: Monday, 11 February 2008 From: "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)dotasia.org> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Agreed. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > Regards, > > Adrian Kinderis -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com Agreed. Edmon > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:11 AM > To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > The same issue was raised at our table Avri. > > I believe your suggested change would be appropriate. > > Regards, > > Adrian Kinderis > Managing Director > AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd > Level 8, 10 Queens Road > Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 > Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 > Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 > Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com > Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com > > The information contained in this communication is intended for the > named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain > legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an > intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action > in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, > please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, 11 February 2008 12:59 PM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report > > > Hi, > > At my table this evening, we had a conversation about Executive > summary point #5 - specifically the last phrase "... without GNSO's > concurrence" > > While explaning it this, I explained that it really refered to the > need to have have resolved the issue as explained in #2 and the ICANn > community had achieved a common agreement of an interim procedure. > > I am wondering whether we might be to change it to say: " without > prior community concurrence" > > thanks > > a.

7 8

Re: [council] Response to ccNSO/GAC Issues report
by Rosette, Kristina 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

I agree with Chuck. Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. ------------------------- Sent from my Wireless Handheld ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Tue Feb 12 07:11:02 2008 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

Revised agenda for the Open Council meeting in New Delhi
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Dear Council members, Attached please find the revised agenda for the open Council meeting in New Delhi. There is no break as discussed, and GNSO improvements have been added. Thank you. Kind regards Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0