Thanks Kurt and David. Chuck From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 12:53 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: Council GNSO; David Olive Subject: Re: New gTLD Geographical Names 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