I agree with James and Donna on this. From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Monday, July 31, 2017 at 9:33 AM To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Cc: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Good morning all. I agree with Donna, and feel it’s important that we leave this statement in our response. Thanks — J. On Jul 31, 2017 at 10:55 , Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote: 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>: Colleagues- Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text. Thanks -- J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council (council@gnso.icann.org) wrote: It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council