Hi, As I mentioned in the call yesterday, I personally argue that the GNSO and GAC are _not_ in agreement on the reservation of names at the 2nd level and that the GAC letter is mistaken in this asumption. In a conversation with Janis Karklins after he received the letter and asked me if the GAC could so assume, I answered that it _could not_. I went on to point out that the only meaning that could be taken from our not explicitly discussing the reservation of names at the second level was that we had not come to full consensus on this yet and discussions were still ongoing on the GNSO council's position on this subject. I can only assume that I was not clear enough or explicit enough in my comments to him. I believe that it is important to reiterate that the GNSO still supports its supermajority decision in 2007 on the policy recommendation that emerged from the bottom-up process and that the GNSO council viewed any deviations from those policy recommendations with concern, even in cases where it did not make an explicit consensus based public statement. a. On 29 May 2009, at 10:32, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may09-en.htm
GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
28 May 2009
On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF, 72K] http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-en.pdf responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability to implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC Principles regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The letter recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in three internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the second level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However, other issues relating to geographic names at the top level and the potential misuse of the respective names at the second level requires further discussion.
The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March, 2009 seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve the outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection of geographic names at the second level (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08 and http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pdf) [PDF, 245K].
The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24 April 2009 http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf [PDF, 95K].
On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the proposal outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009, http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf [PDF, 69K].
The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009 and which will now be published 29 May, 2009. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org