Board Meeting - GAC Communique
All, I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this. Here is what I am concerned about; 1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there nor issue) 2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*. That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi. Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is significant that the GAC have this view. Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs
From GAC Communiqué:
The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to: - the need to take full account of the security, stability and resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; - the importance of further economic studies to improve the community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; - the need for more effective protection of intellectual property rights; - the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential impacts on competition in the DNS market; - the need to explore track differentiation between categories; - the need to respect national public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical meaning; - the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources. In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 3. The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.
Adrian, GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to comment "before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will be available with appropriate time offset. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique All, I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this. Here is what I am concerned about; 1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there nor issue) 2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*. That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi. Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is significant that the GAC have this view. Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs
From GAC Communiqué:
The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to: - the need to take full account of the security, stability and resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; - the importance of further economic studies to improve the community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; - the need for more effective protection of intellectual property rights; - the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential impacts on competition in the DNS market; - the need to explore track differentiation between categories; - the need to respect national public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical meaning; - the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources. In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 3. The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.
During the meeting I am 99% sure he said "at". I understand the diplomacy point. Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 1:41 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique Adrian, GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to comment "before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will be available with appropriate time offset. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique All, I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this. Here is what I am concerned about; 1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there nor issue) 2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*. That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi. Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is significant that the GAC have this view. Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs
From GAC Communiqué:
The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to: - the need to take full account of the security, stability and resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; - the importance of further economic studies to improve the community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; - the need for more effective protection of intellectual property rights; - the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential impacts on competition in the DNS market; - the need to explore track differentiation between categories; - the need to respect national public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical meaning; - the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources. In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 3. The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.
I thought he said "at" but note what the full communique says in the last paragraph of section III: "The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi." I sincerely hope that it is "before". Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:43 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique During the meeting I am 99% sure he said "at". I understand the diplomacy point. Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 1:41 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique Adrian, GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to comment "before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will be available with appropriate time offset. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique All, I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this. Here is what I am concerned about; 1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there nor issue) 2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*. That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi. Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is significant that the GAC have this view. Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs From GAC Communiqué: The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to: - the need to take full account of the security, stability and resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; - the importance of further economic studies to improve the community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; - the need for more effective protection of intellectual property rights; - the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential impacts on competition in the DNS market; - the need to explore track differentiation between categories; - the need to respect national public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical meaning; - the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources. In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 3. The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.
Anyway, the pressure is on staff and the community to come up with a GAC-commentable version asap. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:51 An: Adrian Kinderis; Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich; council@gnso.icann.org Betreff: RE: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique I thought he said "at" but note what the full communique says in the last paragraph of section III: "The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi." I sincerely hope that it is "before". Chuck _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:43 PM To: KnobenW@telekom.de; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique During the meeting I am 99% sure he said "at". I understand the diplomacy point. Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de] Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 1:41 PM To: Adrian Kinderis; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique Adrian, GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to comment "before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will be available with appropriate time offset. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique All, I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about this. Here is what I am concerned about; 1. The GAC believes that there will be another DAG (no big news there nor issue) 2. Interestingly, the GAC believes that they will comment on this draft, whichever version, *IN NAIROBI*. That means that they (the GAC) believe the process will open for comment and that they will be able to provide their comments in Nairobi (i.e. March, 2010). From this we can assume, that the GAC assumes that no final Application Guidebook will be posted before Nairobi. Whist this isn't particularly ground breaking, nor determinative, it is significant that the GAC have this view. Just figured I'd share these thoughts will you all. Adrian Kinderis -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 12:12 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] GAC Communiqué on new gTLDs
From GAC Communiqué:
The GAC provided ICANN with extensive comments on the DAG version 2 in its letter to the Board dated 18th August. The GAC appreciates the reply provided by the Chairman of the Board on 22nd September. Following discussions in Seoul however, both between GAC members and with other stakeholders, the GAC feels that many of its concerns remain outstanding, related in particular to: - the need to take full account of the security, stability and resiliency issues including those identified in the recent root scaling reports. These concerned the potential cumulative effects of changes resulting from the introduction and implementation of DNSSEC, IDNs, new gTLDs and IPv6; - the importance of further economic studies to improve the community's understanding of all the costs, benefits and market impacts; - the need for more effective protection of intellectual property rights; - the ongoing discussions within the community regarding structural separation between registries and registrars, price caps and the potential impacts on competition in the DNS market; - the need to explore track differentiation between categories; - the need to respect national public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical meaning; - the need to assist developing countries which would otherwise be constrained by their limited access to financial and technical resources. In the expectation that a new draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be issued, the GAC does not intend to comment at this stage in detail on version 3. The GAC therefore intends to provide more comprehensive comments to the Board before the next meeting in Nairobi.
participants (3)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Gomes, Chuck -
KnobenW＠telekom.de