Hi Rafik
Our response needs to respond to the suggestion in the restated GAC advice that certain geographic TLDs should only be addressed through a ccNSO PDP. I think
it’s important that our response reflect that while the ccNSO could have initiated a PDP on country and territory names, they chose not to. However, they did establish a CCWG.
The language is not intended to be adversarial. It is intended to be factual to ensure that the Board understands that despite the GAC advice, which was provided
some years ago, the ccNSO chose a CCWG rather a PDP as the mechanism to consider country and territory names as TLDs. I personally think this is important and would prefer to leave the language as it is.
Donna
From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:59 PM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
Hi ,
a quick comment here, do we really need such statement "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and
territory names at the top-level"? I think we are already making about point and such statement can be perceived as adversarial. I would like to suggest to remove it and that won't change the substance of our
response.
Best,
Rafik
2017-07-29 5:29 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>: