Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54e11048363d3f09e5d83e4dba7064bc.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Dear all, Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April. Very best regards Olof
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b90048f2bfa1fb043625de7955dfdda6.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Thanks Olof. I have a few questions. 1. What does the last sentence in the third paragraph mean: "Candidate implementation discussed models both complied with the policy recommendations."? 2. Under Technical Service Provider Qualification what does the following bullet mean: "Classification societies could be helpful if the accreditation approach is pursued." What are 'classification societies'? 3. Under Country, territory and place names, my memory may be faulty but I don't recall the following: "It is unclear whether GAC views should trump other views and how to make a final determination unless in full agreement." I don't think there was ever support in the original recommendations for the GAC trumping other views. And I don't recall a different conclusion in L.A. 4. Also under Country, territory and place names, I don't remember deciding the following: "Notification to governments/GAC should only be for country names." It seems that governments/GAC should be notified of all proposed names just like everyone else, but their standing to object would not be the same for names other than country names. This seems to be corrected four bullets later: "It is advisable to inform governments about all strings applied for." 5. Under String confusion, shouldn't the word 'may' be 'would' in the following: "On questions, staff responded that an algorithm would not have a deterministic role in the process and that string confusion may be objection based or assessed in the initial evaluation, followed by expert panel determination in the extended evaluation." 6. As I have said repeatedly, the following under String confusion is contrary to the GNSO recommendations: "Asked whether both the algorithm and the panel would be kept to visual similarity, staff responded that this was the current approach." That approach may be okay for the algorithm but it is not okay for the dispute process. 7. Was there agreement to the following under String confusion: "SLD holders should have standing to object against confusingly similar strings to the TLD they are registered in."? I didn't think so. 8. It would be helpful to better understand the divergence described as follows : "Divergence of views between Ry and BC representatives were expressed regarding if, for example, .museum would be granted an application for its string translated into Chinese." Chuck Gomes ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:18 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs Dear all, Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April. Very best regards Olof
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/6f5a3fb7f25f7c132baebf69b1c6272b.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Olof, Thanks for these notes. There were 2 points in the draft that I had concerns with. 1. Under the "Country, territory and place names" section it says: "It is unclear whether GAC views should trump other views ..." I don't remember hearing anyone at the meeting say GAC views should trump the views of other stake-holders. I don't think anyone suggested that ICANN should no longer be led by the private sector and that anyone stakeholder should be able to trump other stake- holders. Who suggested this at the LA mtg? 2. Also under the "Country, territory and place names" section, a point that I made in LA is missing from these notes. I stated that it was inappropriate to use the Paris Convention to justify not permitting tlds with country names in them since the Paris Convention regulates commercial speech ONLY - not ALL speech. So I think this point, which was made in the LA mtg, should be included in the notes. Thanks. Best, Robin On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Olof Nordling wrote:
Dear all, Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April.
Very best regards
Olof <GNSO meeting notes(complete).pdf>
IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/54e11048363d3f09e5d83e4dba7064bc.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Robin, Thanks for comments! Here are mine in return: 1. This was in relation to GAC principles and statements on the matter, where meeting comments questioned their importance for any final verdict. I think that "unclear" captures that, in a shorthand way. 2. Point taken, although please keep in mind that the notes are not exhaustive/minutes. Very best regards Olof From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:34 AM To: Olof Nordling Cc: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs Hi Olof, Thanks for these notes. There were 2 points in the draft that I had concerns with. 1. Under the "Country, territory and place names" section it says: "It is unclear whether GAC views should trump other views ..." I don't remember hearing anyone at the meeting say GAC views should trump the views of other stake-holders. I don't think anyone suggested that ICANN should no longer be led by the private sector and that anyone stakeholder should be able to trump other stake-holders. Who suggested this at the LA mtg? 2. Also under the "Country, territory and place names" section, a point that I made in LA is missing from these notes. I stated that it was inappropriate to use the Paris Convention to justify not permitting tlds with country names in them since the Paris Convention regulates commercial speech ONLY - not ALL speech. So I think this point, which was made in the LA mtg, should be included in the notes. Thanks. Best, Robin On Apr 29, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Olof Nordling wrote: Dear all, Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April. Very best regards Olof <GNSO meeting notes(complete).pdf> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>
participants (3)
-
Gomes, Chuck
-
Olof Nordling
-
Robin Gross