GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
[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
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
Avri, I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go? Thanks, Stéphane Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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
Hi, If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney. Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented. Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option? a. On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting with the GAC. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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.pd
f) [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
Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest? After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter... Stéphane Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting with the GAC.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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.pd
f) [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
I think this letter is a good idea. Olga 2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest? After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter...
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting
with
the GAC.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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.pd
f) [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
I have a slightly different view of this and question whats to be gained from sending another letter to the GAC at this stage when well meet with them quite soon? As Avri pointed out, ideally the process should include time for Constituencies to comment before its sent and that means its only likely to go just prior to the Sydney meeting. With many participants in the GAC and GNSO leaving home a few days earlier to travel, thats a pretty tight timeframe. Overall, Id tend to support Chucks suggestion that we spend that time developing talking points for the face to face session. Tony _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: 30 May 2009 02:49 To: Stéphane Van Gelder Cc: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names I think this letter is a good idea. Olga 2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com> Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest? After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter... Stéphane Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting
with
the GAC.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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.pd
f) [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
Seems like the right approach. Bill On May 30, 2009, at 3:48 AM, Olga Cavalli wrote:
I think this letter is a good idea. Olga
2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest? After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter...
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in
Sydney, then
shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting with the GAC.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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]
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.pd
f) [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
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
As I previously communicated, I am supportive of doing a letter but more importantly I think that we should make sure that we have a well understood position on this issue in advance of our meeting with the GAC on Sunday in Sydney. That does not mean that we have to have full consensus on one view but rather that we know where we stand on this issue whether it is one view or multiple views and that we are prepared to articulate, defend and discuss our view(s) with GAC members in the meeting. To the extent that we can provide our view(s) in writing to the GAC before the meeting, I think that would be helpful but, because they want documents three weeks in advance, that may not be possible. At the same time, I am sure that being able to distribute a written document on our view(s) just before or at some time after the meeting would be appreciated. Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest? After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter...
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 22:53, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then shouldn't we at least develop talking points about
this for our
meeting with the GAC.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
Hi,
If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I am sure it could. Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous letter, we would need to make sure that the process included time for any constituencies that wished to comment before sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair, indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion, necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
Are council members interested in either of these, a variant or another option?
a.
On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
Avri,
I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you suggest doing so? Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
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.pd
f) [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
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Glen de Saint Géry -
Gomes, Chuck -
Olga Cavalli -
Philip Sheppard -
Stéphane Van Gelder -
Tony Holmes -
William Drake