![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/3f1f7e3cc0afc2f69fa0244c9617a781.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hello All, We should also look at including the input from WIPO-II into the policy development process on the criteria or conditions associated with new gTLDs. Note that the more recent gTLD agreements already have some restrictions related to country names etc. Just to be clear - I am not proposing that we pre-empt the outcome of the PDP with respect to the input from WIPO-II, merely suggesting that this material be part of the background material. Regards, Bruce
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/43dabc8c2458208e79a8bffa744e4002.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks, Bruce. Just a request that we are careful about how we reference "WIPO II". First, as I was reminded by a country representative who is engaged at WIPO, he didn't know what WIPO II was. :-) But in addition, there is not yet a formal response from ICANN, even though there have been registry requirements within SOME sponsored gTLDS and within info. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:20 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Kurt Pritz; gnso.icann; Tim Cole; Tina Dam; Maria Farrell; Olof Nordling; Liz Williams Subject: [council] WIPO-II and new gTLDs Hello All, We should also look at including the input from WIPO-II into the policy development process on the criteria or conditions associated with new gTLDs. Note that the more recent gTLD agreements already have some restrictions related to country names etc. Just to be clear - I am not proposing that we pre-empt the outcome of the PDP with respect to the input from WIPO-II, merely suggesting that this material be part of the background material. Regards, Bruce
participants (2)
-
Bruce Tonkin
-
Marilyn Cade