Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon¹s comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Stephane Excellent, I can find no further suggestions to offer. I do like Edmons wording also as you included it in the draft. There may be some value to Appendix Avri suggested; but then again it would make it feel more like a document than a letter of response. Take care Terry From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmons comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it... you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part. Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time." Would like to suggest edits as follows: Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Councils Friday deadline and considered my draft good to go, with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder
Thanks Terry, I agree with your comment on the appendix and propose not to include one if that¹s okay with everyone. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 17:27, « Terry L Davis, P.E. » <tdavis2@speakeasy.net> a écrit :
Stephane
Excellent, I can find no further suggestions to offer. I do like Edmon¹s wording also as you included it in the draft.
There may be some value to Appendix Avri suggested; but then again it would make it feel more like a document than a letter of response.
Take care Terry
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon¹s comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon's comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it... you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part. Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time." Would like to suggest edits as follows: Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council's Friday deadline and considered my draft "good to go", with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis - William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder
Hi Kristina, Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object. Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on. Let me know if that helps. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon¹s comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Hi Stephane, Sure. 1. If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the IPC. I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20). 2. It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated as any other objector. As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from participating in the objection process. 3. The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List. It's not a reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's proposal. 4. The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT proposals. Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter would result in my supporting it. I have no objection to the letter noting that I have abstained. That would allow the letter to be submitted and still note that I have not supported it. It seems like a good compromise to me. K ________________________________ From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Hi Kristina, Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object. Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on. Let me know if that helps. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit : I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained. ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon's comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it... you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part. Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time." Would like to suggest edits as follows: Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council's Friday deadline and considered my draft "good to go", with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis - William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder
Dear Stephane and Council colleagues, Like Kristina I'm in the middle of the IRT meeting, and as such I apologize that I haven't had the chance to consider the issue in greater depth. First, I fully support the basic premises and fundamental principles expressed in the letter, in particular the concerns regarding special treatment and privileged access. My specific concern is thus not one of principle. As Kristina has mentioned, the IRT's Draft Report recommends a Globally Protected Marks List (for globally-recognized, registered trademarks) as well as a Uniform Rapid Suspension system for abusive registrations. The nature, procedures and objectives behind these are extremely different from the GAC's proposal regarding geographical names; however, I'm slightly concerned that my being on the IRT could be perceived by some as inconsistent with (and potentially detrimental to) the Council's response to the GAC. I'd be happy if more experienced heads than mine think this concern is overstated; on the other hand, if that is not the case, is it possible to express support for the general position stated in the letter without approving the specific comments therein? Thanks and cheers, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> 5/12/2009 6:22 PM >>> Hi Stephane,
Sure. 1. If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the IPC. I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20). 2. It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated as any other objector. As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from participating in the objection process. 3. The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List. It's not a reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's proposal. 4. The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT proposals. Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter would result in my supporting it. I have no objection to the letter noting that I have abstained. That would allow the letter to be submitted and still note that I have not supported it. It seems like a good compromise to me. K From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Hi Kristina, Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object. Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on. Let me know if that helps. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit : I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained. From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmons comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it... you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: "All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part. Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time." Would like to suggest edits as follows: Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Councils Friday deadline and considered my draft good to go, with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder
Thanks Mary for your feedback. As I’ve just bored everyone to tears with a long email to Kristina, I won’t start again here ;-) As indicated in that email, I will try to incorporate Kristina’s, Chuck’s and you comments as best I can in a modified draft which I will circulate to the list asap. Thanks, Stéphane Le 13/05/09 00:39, « Mary Wong » <MWong@piercelaw.edu> a écrit :
Dear Stephane and Council colleagues,
Like Kristina I'm in the middle of the IRT meeting, and as such I apologize that I haven't had the chance to consider the issue in greater depth.
First, I fully support the basic premises and fundamental principles expressed in the letter, in particular the concerns regarding special treatment and privileged access. My specific concern is thus not one of principle.
As Kristina has mentioned, the IRT's Draft Report recommends a Globally Protected Marks List (for globally-recognized, registered trademarks) as well as a Uniform Rapid Suspension system for abusive registrations. The nature, procedures and objectives behind these are extremely different from the GAC's proposal regarding geographical names; however, I'm slightly concerned that my being on the IRT could be perceived by some as inconsistent with (and potentially detrimental to) the Council's response to the GAC.
I'd be happy if more experienced heads than mine think this concern is overstated; on the other hand, if that is not the case, is it possible to express support for the general position stated in the letter without approving the specific comments therein?
Thanks and cheers, Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> 5/12/2009 6:22 PM >>> Hi Stephane,
Sure.
1. If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the IPC. I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20).
2. It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated as any other objector. As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from participating in the objection process.
3. The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List. It's not a reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's proposal.
4. The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT proposals.
Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter would result in my supporting it. I have no objection to the letter noting that I have abstained. That would allow the letter to be submitted and still note that I have not supported it. It seems like a good compromise to me.
K
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Hi Kristina,
Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.
Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on.
Let me know if that helps.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmons comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Councils Friday deadline and considered my draft good to go, with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
For the record you may wish to note a BC abstention also.
Hi Kristina, Thanks for providing this clarification which is really helpful in understanding your position. Let me start with your last point. I do agree what you suggest is a good compromise, although I would defer to Avri to decide whether things can be done that way and the letter can be sent with your abstention noted. However I would also like to add that I think the point you raise about not having enough time to consult with your constituents was addressed by Avri in an email sent yesterday. The gist of which was that, in such matters as sending a letter on behalf of the GNSO Council, councillors are acting in their own capacity as members of the Council. I fully agree with this position as a general principle. I think councillors should consult with their constituents whenever possible, but I also think they are elected to act and they carry the trust of their constituents. I think the position we take when we write a letter such as the one we are working on at the moment is a Council position. I don¹t think that these efforts should be blocked or hindered because there isn¹t enough time to go back to the constituencies. I think that¹s what our constituents expect of us: to make informed and thought-out judgment calls when we need to. On your other points, I don¹t think this letter is saying that governments should simply be treated like any other objector. What I was trying to say in my draft (but this may not have been well written, don¹t forget I¹m French ;-) ) is that issues of national sovereignty notwithstanding, governments should not be granted a de facto privileged right to veto everything before anyone else. It is perfectly clear that governments should be allowed to protect their respective countries¹ national resources, and that includes their names on the Internet. Once again, this has already been built into the DAG and the new gTLD program. What in my mind is less acceptable is that governments should be given all-conquering veto power over any string their might take objection to, at both the top and the second level. My understanding of what is going on inside the IRT may be incomplete and you undoubtedly have a better vision of this than I do, but I don¹t see any part of the letter which goes against the IRT¹s proposals as I understand them. However I understand your reservations (no pun intended) to any specific wording which could be construed as being against reserved lists. I see in another email Chuck has suggested some edits. May I suggest that I include these edits in a modified draft, which would also try to alleviate your concerns about reserved lists? I will send that to the list asap. Let me end by saying that I see our duty as GNSO councillors to ensure that the new gTLD program is rolled out in a timely and fair manner. This program stems from extensive work by the GNSO Council and Constituencies. Work in which all parties were involved, including governments and including IP. I fully agree with the need to take the time to get things right. But if the intent is to artificially slow the process down after there has been GNSO-wide approval for it, then I take exception to that. And I feel that for governments to ask for complete veto power at top and second level may slow the process down in a way which might seem artificial, as it is clear such a proposal would not be acceptable to many other parties. Thanks and sorry for the long email. Stéphane Le 13/05/09 00:22, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
Hi Stephane,
Sure.
1. If I am expected to support the letter as a member of Council, I have an obligation to consult substantively with, at a minimum, the leadership of the IPC. I have not had the opportunity to do that and will not before the 48-hour deadline (or, for that matter, until after May 20).
2. It is difficult to maintain the position that governments should be treated as any other objector. As a practical matter, issues of sovereignty and more, specifically, national law may effectively preclude governments from participating in the objection process.
3. The IRT has proposed a Globally Protected Marks List. It's not a reserved names list and would not be free to trdemark owners. Nonetheless, I can't support the current textual reference to the GAC's proposal.
4. The IRT is discussing and/or has proposed other mechanisms for which my support of this letter would be inconsistent with my clear support of the IRT proposals.
Given point 1 above, it is unlikely that any further changes to the letter would result in my supporting it. I have no objection to the letter noting that I have abstained. That would allow the letter to be submitted and still note that I have not supported it. It seems like a good compromise to me.
K
From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 5:59 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Hi Kristina,
Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.
Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on.
Let me know if that helps.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon¹s comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council¹s Friday deadline and considered my draft ³good to go², with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder
I inserted some suggested edits, comments and questions that are highlighted in the attached file. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Following on, for clarity here is the draft modified to take Edmon's comments into account. Stéphane Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> a écrit : Edmon, Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I am copying this to the Council list. I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone objects. Thanks, Stéphane Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@registry.asia> a écrit : sorry for the late response... I do see that the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council list unless you feel comfortable about it... you had: " No such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would be inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new contractual obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary." I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in the s round, there is a clause: " All geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC." What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English and in all related official languages" part. Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says: "In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories, distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as ICANN may direct from time to time." Would like to suggest edits as follows: Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard, especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new contractual obligations maybe unnecessary. Edmon From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC Dear all, In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process. At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this Friday. In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my draft to the team yesterday. The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council's Friday deadline and considered my draft "good to go", with one addition by David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached). Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to the GAC on Friday. My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony Harris - Terry Davis - William Drake. Best, Stéphane Van Gelder
participants (6)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Philip Sheppard -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Terry L Davis, P.E.