Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
Heather, All During an RySG call yesterday there was considerable discussion about the merits of each of the proposed options relating to the geographic names. I understand (and sincerely apologise) this request is late in the day; however, the RySG has requested that consideration be given to a potential third option that would serve to replace both Option A and Option B. As you will see, this third option contains the main elements of both Option A and B, and also addresses the comment from Paul McGrady that the response call out the community discussions in Johannesburg: The GNSO Council also takes note of the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains“ section of the communiqué restating previous advice and positions. Among those positions are references that imply that certain geographic top-level domains should be addressed by, and only through, a ccNSO PDP. With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level, the ccNSO established a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG UCTN) that was jointly chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO. The CCWG UCTN recently produced a final report, but was unable to provide recommendations on the use of country and territory names as TLDs, beyond the use of two-characters. The GNSO strongly believes that these issues are currently within the scope and charter of the GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP). As a result of the recent Cross Community Discussions on geographic names conducted at ICANN 59, the SubPro PDP is establishing a new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level and inviting representatives from each of the SOs and ACs to form a Leadership Team for that Work Track. The GNSO Council encourages participation from the community, including the GAC, in that SubPro PDP to ensure a multi-stakeholder bottom up solution to this issue. This approach is consistent with the GAC’s position also contained in the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains” section of the communiqué “ … that any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements.” As Rubens has already noted on the Council list, the respective authors of Options A and B both recognize potential shortcomings of their suggested text and to that end both Rubens and Jeff both support the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this late amendment, which serves to replace both Option A and Option B. Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:54 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear Council colleagues, We have reached a point of near finalization of the GNSO Response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique. The one outstanding item amongst the members of the revision team is the text relating to geographic names. You'll see this text in the attached draft as Option A and Option B. For our input to reach the Board in time for its meeting with the GAC in the week of 14 August, we cannot push this out to the next Council meeting in late August. For our response to be timely and effective, we need a Communique Response that we can agree on in full before it goes to electronic vote. We had scheduled an electronic Council vote to open this Thursday, but we don't yet have a final text to vote on. Hence I propose we delay the electronic vote to open next Monday to give us all time to consider and take instructions (if appropriate) on Option A and B. To help us get to final, votable text, please could you review the attached and complete the Doodle to express support for either Option A or B on geo names. Doodle: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_poll_yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=YCVgcMubkaHFRHLFtfeKImXTW8Nipr07HJGcexh2XrE&s=kIS8BXv4sOul3g4opzWC6lqtvhe6Vhm1XpK9VFYJwZM&e=> Timeline: · Monday, 24 July: Doodle (to select Option A or B on geo names text) opens · Friday, 28 July: Doodle closes · Monday, 31 July: Electronic vote on Council motion approving the GNSO Response to GAC Joburg Communique (including preferred Option A or B) opens · Friday, 4 August: Electronic vote closes · Monday, 7 August: GNSO Response to GAC Communique transmitted to Board Many thanks to Marika and the Secretariat team for helping to coordinate both the Doodle and e-vote in such a tight timeframe. Also noting that James and Donna are both away today, so I'm on point to shepherd this through. Best wishes to all, Heather
Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below (replacing the original option A and B). If there are no objections, this will be the version that will be considered as part of the electronic vote which is due to open on Monday. Best regards, Marika From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 17:12 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Heather, All During an RySG call yesterday there was considerable discussion about the merits of each of the proposed options relating to the geographic names. I understand (and sincerely apologise) this request is late in the day; however, the RySG has requested that consideration be given to a potential third option that would serve to replace both Option A and Option B. As you will see, this third option contains the main elements of both Option A and B, and also addresses the comment from Paul McGrady that the response call out the community discussions in Johannesburg: The GNSO Council also takes note of the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains“ section of the communiqué restating previous advice and positions. Among those positions are references that imply that certain geographic top-level domains should be addressed by, and only through, a ccNSO PDP. With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level, the ccNSO established a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG UCTN) that was jointly chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO. The CCWG UCTN recently produced a final report, but was unable to provide recommendations on the use of country and territory names as TLDs, beyond the use of two-characters. The GNSO strongly believes that these issues are currently within the scope and charter of the GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP). As a result of the recent Cross Community Discussions on geographic names conducted at ICANN 59, the SubPro PDP is establishing a new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level and inviting representatives from each of the SOs and ACs to form a Leadership Team for that Work Track. The GNSO Council encourages participation from the community, including the GAC, in that SubPro PDP to ensure a multi-stakeholder bottom up solution to this issue. This approach is consistent with the GAC’s position also contained in the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains” section of the communiqué “ … that any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements.” As Rubens has already noted on the Council list, the respective authors of Options A and B both recognize potential shortcomings of their suggested text and to that end both Rubens and Jeff both support the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this late amendment, which serves to replace both Option A and Option B. Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:54 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear Council colleagues, We have reached a point of near finalization of the GNSO Response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique. The one outstanding item amongst the members of the revision team is the text relating to geographic names. You'll see this text in the attached draft as Option A and Option B. For our input to reach the Board in time for its meeting with the GAC in the week of 14 August, we cannot push this out to the next Council meeting in late August. For our response to be timely and effective, we need a Communique Response that we can agree on in full before it goes to electronic vote. We had scheduled an electronic Council vote to open this Thursday, but we don't yet have a final text to vote on. Hence I propose we delay the electronic vote to open next Monday to give us all time to consider and take instructions (if appropriate) on Option A and B. To help us get to final, votable text, please could you review the attached and complete the Doodle to express support for either Option A or B on geo names. Doodle: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_poll_yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=YCVgcMubkaHFRHLFtfeKImXTW8Nipr07HJGcexh2XrE&s=kIS8BXv4sOul3g4opzWC6lqtvhe6Vhm1XpK9VFYJwZM&e=> Timeline: · Monday, 24 July: Doodle (to select Option A or B on geo names text) opens · Friday, 28 July: Doodle closes · Monday, 31 July: Electronic vote on Council motion approving the GNSO Response to GAC Joburg Communique (including preferred Option A or B) opens · Friday, 4 August: Electronic vote closes · Monday, 7 August: GNSO Response to GAC Communique transmitted to Board Many thanks to Marika and the Secretariat team for helping to coordinate both the Doodle and e-vote in such a tight timeframe. Also noting that James and Donna are both away today, so I'm on point to shepherd this through. Best wishes to all, Heather
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below (replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf
Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote: > Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of > the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below > (replacing the original option A and B). Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Fine with me Marika! Erika On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected.
Best regards,
Marika
On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
> Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of > the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below > (replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"?
Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
No objections from me. __________ *Darcy Southwell *| Compliance Officer M: +1 503-453-7305 │ Skype: darcy.enyeart On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:18 AM, Erika Mann <erika@erikamann.com> wrote:
Fine with me Marika!
Erika
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected.
Best regards,
Marika
On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
> Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of > the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below > (replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"?
Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote: > Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of > the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below > (replacing the original option A and B). Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Qe8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmfNYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e=
Colleagues- Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text. Thanks -- J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) wrote: It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Qe8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmfNYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e= _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi , a quick comment here, do we really need such statement "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level"? I think we are already making about point and such statement can be perceived as adversarial. I would like to suggest to remove it and that won't change the substance of our response. Best, Rafik 2017-07-29 5:29 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>:
Colleagues-
Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text.
Thanks --
J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy
On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council ( council@gnso.icann.org) wrote:
It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf.
-----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.i cann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique
Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected.
Best regards,
Marika
On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org on behalf of julf@julf.com> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that
position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country
and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of
"initiative"?
Julf
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.ican n.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Q e8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmf NYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e=
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Hi Rafik Our response needs to respond to the suggestion in the restated GAC advice that certain geographic TLDs should only be addressed through a ccNSO PDP. I think it’s important that our response reflect that while the ccNSO could have initiated a PDP on country and territory names, they chose not to. However, they did establish a CCWG. The language is not intended to be adversarial. It is intended to be factual to ensure that the Board understands that despite the GAC advice, which was provided some years ago, the ccNSO chose a CCWG rather a PDP as the mechanism to consider country and territory names as TLDs. I personally think this is important and would prefer to leave the language as it is. Donna From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:59 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Hi , a quick comment here, do we really need such statement "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level"? I think we are already making about point and such statement can be perceived as adversarial. I would like to suggest to remove it and that won't change the substance of our response. Best, Rafik 2017-07-29 5:29 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>: Colleagues- Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text. Thanks -- J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) wrote: It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Qe8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmfNYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e= _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=>
Good morning all. I agree with Donna, and feel it’s important that we leave this statement in our response. Thanks — J. On Jul 31, 2017 at 10:55 , Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote: Hi Rafik Our response needs to respond to the suggestion in the restated GAC advice that certain geographic TLDs should only be addressed through a ccNSO PDP. I think it’s important that our response reflect that while the ccNSO could have initiated a PDP on country and territory names, they chose not to. However, they did establish a CCWG. The language is not intended to be adversarial. It is intended to be factual to ensure that the Board understands that despite the GAC advice, which was provided some years ago, the ccNSO chose a CCWG rather a PDP as the mechanism to consider country and territory names as TLDs. I personally think this is important and would prefer to leave the language as it is. Donna From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:59 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Hi , a quick comment here, do we really need such statement "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level"? I think we are already making about point and such statement can be perceived as adversarial. I would like to suggest to remove it and that won't change the substance of our response. Best, Rafik 2017-07-29 5:29 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>: Colleagues- Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text. Thanks -- J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) wrote: It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Qe8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmfNYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e= _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=>
Agree as well Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device From: jbladel@godaddy.com Sent: July 31, 2017 12:34 PM To: Donna.Austin@team.neustar Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Good morning all. I agree with Donna, and feel it’s important that we leave this statement in our response. Thanks — J. On Jul 31, 2017 at 10:55 , Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> wrote: Hi Rafik Our response needs to respond to the suggestion in the restated GAC advice that certain geographic TLDs should only be addressed through a ccNSO PDP. I think it’s important that our response reflect that while the ccNSO could have initiated a PDP on country and territory names, they chose not to. However, they did establish a CCWG. The language is not intended to be adversarial. It is intended to be factual to ensure that the Board understands that despite the GAC advice, which was provided some years ago, the ccNSO chose a CCWG rather a PDP as the mechanism to consider country and territory names as TLDs. I personally think this is important and would prefer to leave the language as it is. Donna From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 3:59 PM To: James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com>; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Hi , a quick comment here, do we really need such statement "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level"? I think we are already making about point and such statement can be perceived as adversarial. I would like to suggest to remove it and that won't change the substance of our response. Best, Rafik 2017-07-29 5:29 GMT+09:00 James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>: Colleagues- Marika has sent me the final language via skype, and as the maker of the motion I can agree with this text. Thanks -- J. ------------- James Bladel GoDaddy On July 28, 2017 at 11:12:21, Austin, Donna via council (council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>) wrote: It was indeed a typo. Thanks Julf. -----Original Message----- From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 11:56 PM To: Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Thanks, Julf. Assuming that was indeed a typo, please find updated version attached with the typo corrected. Best regards, Marika On 7/28/17, 08:49, "council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Johan Helsingius" <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of julf@julf.com<mailto:julf@julf.com>> wrote:
Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of
the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below
(replacing the original option A and B).
Looks good! A minor typo - I assume that in "With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names", it should read "initiate" instead of "initiative"? Julf _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwIGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=Tytd5Qe8A_NcYl0hzs-SXI1tcyaaj-jdfQU982a-OLM&s=9WxiKScG27BHT2kKdbmfNYuanOeVm2B6urjYGLKqITM&e= _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=> _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=1dKrXrjYnNXtyc6Xtq1D35B8GqRwtdrNsurKUxa5O7o&s=86X2m66lnxlOuNjsY4sEFUKn0Mja08ChrcWqUZjzATM&e=>
Marika et al I’d like to vote in support of the amended text, but the Doodle only refers to the original option A and B. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday 28 July 2017 at 07:39 To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below (replacing the original option A and B). If there are no objections, this will be the version that will be considered as part of the electronic vote which is due to open on Monday. Best regards, Marika From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via council" <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply-To: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@team.neustar> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 17:12 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Heather, All During an RySG call yesterday there was considerable discussion about the merits of each of the proposed options relating to the geographic names. I understand (and sincerely apologise) this request is late in the day; however, the RySG has requested that consideration be given to a potential third option that would serve to replace both Option A and Option B. As you will see, this third option contains the main elements of both Option A and B, and also addresses the comment from Paul McGrady that the response call out the community discussions in Johannesburg: The GNSO Council also takes note of the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains“ section of the communiqué restating previous advice and positions. Among those positions are references that imply that certain geographic top-level domains should be addressed by, and only through, a ccNSO PDP. With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level, the ccNSO established a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG UCTN) that was jointly chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO. The CCWG UCTN recently produced a final report, but was unable to provide recommendations on the use of country and territory names as TLDs, beyond the use of two-characters. The GNSO strongly believes that these issues are currently within the scope and charter of the GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP). As a result of the recent Cross Community Discussions on geographic names conducted at ICANN 59, the SubPro PDP is establishing a new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level and inviting representatives from each of the SOs and ACs to form a Leadership Team for that Work Track. The GNSO Council encourages participation from the community, including the GAC, in that SubPro PDP to ensure a multi-stakeholder bottom up solution to this issue. This approach is consistent with the GAC’s position also contained in the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains” section of the communiqué “ … that any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements.” As Rubens has already noted on the Council list, the respective authors of Options A and B both recognize potential shortcomings of their suggested text and to that end both Rubens and Jeff both support the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this late amendment, which serves to replace both Option A and Option B. Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:54 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear Council colleagues, We have reached a point of near finalization of the GNSO Response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique. The one outstanding item amongst the members of the revision team is the text relating to geographic names. You'll see this text in the attached draft as Option A and Option B. For our input to reach the Board in time for its meeting with the GAC in the week of 14 August, we cannot push this out to the next Council meeting in late August. For our response to be timely and effective, we need a Communique Response that we can agree on in full before it goes to electronic vote. We had scheduled an electronic Council vote to open this Thursday, but we don't yet have a final text to vote on. Hence I propose we delay the electronic vote to open next Monday to give us all time to consider and take instructions (if appropriate) on Option A and B. To help us get to final, votable text, please could you review the attached and complete the Doodle to express support for either Option A or B on geo names. Doodle: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_poll_yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=YCVgcMubkaHFRHLFtfeKImXTW8Nipr07HJGcexh2XrE&s=kIS8BXv4sOul3g4opzWC6lqtvhe6Vhm1XpK9VFYJwZM&e=> Timeline: · Monday, 24 July: Doodle (to select Option A or B on geo names text) opens · Friday, 28 July: Doodle closes · Monday, 31 July: Electronic vote on Council motion approving the GNSO Response to GAC Joburg Communique (including preferred Option A or B) opens · Friday, 4 August: Electronic vote closes · Monday, 7 August: GNSO Response to GAC Communique transmitted to Board Many thanks to Marika and the Secretariat team for helping to coordinate both the Doodle and e-vote in such a tight timeframe. Also noting that James and Donna are both away today, so I'm on point to shepherd this through. Best wishes to all, Heather
Hi Marika, Can I have the Option A language as quickly as practical? I need to send that to the IPC list along with Option C which was in the attachment. They want to compare the two. Thanks! Best, Paul From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michele Neylon - Blacknight Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 10:13 AM To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org>; Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Marika et al I’d like to vote in support of the amended text, but the Doodle only refers to the original option A and B. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Friday 28 July 2017 at 07:39 To: "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear All, Please find attached for your review the updated GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communique which includes the language proposed by Donna below (replacing the original option A and B). If there are no objections, this will be the version that will be considered as part of the electronic vote which is due to open on Monday. Best regards, Marika From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Austin, Donna via council" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply-To: Donna Austin <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 17:12 To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com>> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Heather, All During an RySG call yesterday there was considerable discussion about the merits of each of the proposed options relating to the geographic names. I understand (and sincerely apologise) this request is late in the day; however, the RySG has requested that consideration be given to a potential third option that would serve to replace both Option A and Option B. As you will see, this third option contains the main elements of both Option A and B, and also addresses the comment from Paul McGrady that the response call out the community discussions in Johannesburg: The GNSO Council also takes note of the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains“ section of the communiqué restating previous advice and positions. Among those positions are references that imply that certain geographic top-level domains should be addressed by, and only through, a ccNSO PDP. With respect to that position we note that rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at the top-level, the ccNSO established a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG UCTN) that was jointly chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO. The CCWG UCTN recently produced a final report, but was unable to provide recommendations on the use of country and territory names as TLDs, beyond the use of two-characters. The GNSO strongly believes that these issues are currently within the scope and charter of the GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP). As a result of the recent Cross Community Discussions on geographic names conducted at ICANN 59, the SubPro PDP is establishing a new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level and inviting representatives from each of the SOs and ACs to form a Leadership Team for that Work Track. The GNSO Council encourages participation from the community, including the GAC, in that SubPro PDP to ensure a multi-stakeholder bottom up solution to this issue. This approach is consistent with the GAC’s position also contained in the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains” section of the communiqué “ … that any further process of policy review and development should: (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally; (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to any proposals for future arrangements.” As Rubens has already noted on the Council list, the respective authors of Options A and B both recognize potential shortcomings of their suggested text and to that end both Rubens and Jeff both support the proposed amendment. Thank you for considering this late amendment, which serves to replace both Option A and Option B. Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 5:54 AM To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique Dear Council colleagues, We have reached a point of near finalization of the GNSO Response to the GAC Johannesburg Communique. The one outstanding item amongst the members of the revision team is the text relating to geographic names. You'll see this text in the attached draft as Option A and Option B. For our input to reach the Board in time for its meeting with the GAC in the week of 14 August, we cannot push this out to the next Council meeting in late August. For our response to be timely and effective, we need a Communique Response that we can agree on in full before it goes to electronic vote. We had scheduled an electronic Council vote to open this Thursday, but we don't yet have a final text to vote on. Hence I propose we delay the electronic vote to open next Monday to give us all time to consider and take instructions (if appropriate) on Option A and B. To help us get to final, votable text, please could you review the attached and complete the Doodle to express support for either Option A or B on geo names. Doodle: https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_poll_yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=YCVgcMubkaHFRHLFtfeKImXTW8Nipr07HJGcexh2XrE&s=kIS8BXv4sOul3g4opzWC6lqtvhe6Vhm1XpK9VFYJwZM&e=> Timeline: · Monday, 24 July: Doodle (to select Option A or B on geo names text) opens · Friday, 28 July: Doodle closes · Monday, 31 July: Electronic vote on Council motion approving the GNSO Response to GAC Joburg Communique (including preferred Option A or B) opens · Friday, 4 August: Electronic vote closes · Monday, 7 August: GNSO Response to GAC Communique transmitted to Board Many thanks to Marika and the Secretariat team for helping to coordinate both the Doodle and e-vote in such a tight timeframe. Also noting that James and Donna are both away today, so I'm on point to shepherd this through. Best wishes to all, Heather ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
participants (10)
-
Austin, Donna -
Darcy Southwell -
Erika Mann -
icannlists -
James M. Bladel -
Johan Helsingius -
Marika Konings -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Phil Corwin -
Rafik Dammak