How about joint SO/AC initiatives (there was a lot of talk on this after the sessions held in Mexico, but as they were after our dinner with the board, there wasn't much opportunity to discuss with the board)? Stéphane Le 27/05/09 05:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@cov.com> a écrit :

Yes, please add: overarching issue for new gTLDs - malicious conduct

thanks!

K

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:31 PM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney

Hi,

I am planning to start a doodle poll on the topic for the Board, Policy Staff, GNSO Council Dinner.

Some possible topics I have are:

- Pending issue in restructuring - overarching issue for new gTLDs - IRT - overarching issue for new gTLDs - geographic names

any other topics i should include in the list of choices for the poll?

thanks

a.

Thanks Bruce, While I see the logic of what you are suggesting, I'm not sure I understand how you link that to the joint SO/AC sessions. Forgive me if I simply misunderstood what you are saying, but are you suggesting that these topics be handled in those sessions? Thanks, Stéphane Le 28/05/09 08:22, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> a écrit :

Hello Stéphane,

...

How about joint SO/AC initiatives (there was a lot of talk on this after the sessions held in Mexico, but as they were after our dinner with the board, there wasn't much opportunity to discuss with the board)?

With respect to two of the topics suggested by Avri related to new gTLDs - ie the IRT and geographic names, it would be useful to think about how to work more effectively together with ALAC and GAC in particular.

On geographic names - the Board sees various letters exchanged between the GAC, GNSO and the Board on the topic - and geographic names have received attention at several of the recent Board meetings and workshops. The topic is moving forward - but perhaps it is time to have some smaller joint working groups to review the issue further and see what new compromises can be reached - particularly at the second level.

On geographic names the main positions seem to be:

- GAC wants a list of names protected where the Government gets to approve (or provide a letter of non-objection) registration of a domain name

- the GNSO suggests are more general dispute resolution process - although nothing has been proposed at the second level as far as I know other than UDRP

At the top level there does seem to be agreement with respect to names on an ISO country list, at the second level there are many more concerns as country names are routinely used within existing TLDs (gTLDs and ccTLDs). With respect to new TLDs there seems to be many quite reasonable uses of country names (e.g countryname.brand for country specific websites, or countryname.sport, or countryname.news etc). It could be a burden on Governments themselves if they need to approve use of these names. On the other hand countries maybe concerned about sites like countryname.war, or countryname.hate etc. Maybe where a top level domain string has a likelihood to give rise to concerns around morality and public order when combined with a countryname that the GAC could require an approval process for registration of that second level domain. So further work on this topic may be best handled by a smaller group that considers a range of appropriate and inappropriate uses, and see! ks to achieve a reasonable compromise between protecting against mis-use and encouraging new uses of the DNS.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

Thanks for that explanation Bruce. Just to be clear, my initial suggestion on the SO/AC sessions was not linked to the other suggestions made by Avri. For me, they are different topics. Thanks, Stéphane Le 28/05/09 13:36, « Bruce Tonkin » <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> a écrit :

Hello Stéphane,

...

While I see the logic of what you are suggesting, I'm not sure I understand how you link that to the joint SO/AC sessions.

Forgive me if I simply misunderstood what you are saying, but are you suggesting that these topics be handled in those sessions?

Actually I was suggesting that the joint public sessions that have been run so far - are good for speakers from each side expressing their points of view - but they don't help reach any consensus/compromise. In fact they are probably better for discussing brand new policies where wide ranging views are useful at the beginning of a policy development exercise. I was suggesting that to move forward on issues such as geographic names that you may consider a different approach of getting smaller working groups of experts together to consider the issues further.

Regards, Bruce Tonkin

Hi, I appreciate the topics that are coming in and will probably prepare the poll after tomorrow's council meeting. I was using overarching, as a category heading that corresponded to the one the Implementation Staff was using for these topics. But then again I mistakenly put geographic names under that heading. Maybe I will just use something mild like Critical Issues: and leave determination of whether they are gating issues or not to the conversation (assuming these are the preferred topics for the diner). I will probably follow the practice of the last few meetings of picking a main topic and a dessert topic based on the poll. thanks a. On 27 May 2009, at 11:13, Philip Sheppard wrote:

Avri, I support your list and the suggestions to date. I have one question on vocabulary.

You use the word "overarching" in: - Pending issue in restructuring - overarching issue for new gTLDs - IRT - overarching issue for new gTLDs - geographic names

Do you intend to mean all-embracing, or more precisely, that these are issues which in Council's opinion require resolution before TLD expansion can proceed? If this is the case (and I would agree) then maybe a clearer term is needed.

May I suggest either "threshold" or perhaps better "critical-path" ?

Philip

Hi, the poll is at: http://www.doodle.com/pfqvyuw75deerupq a.

Hi, that is because I set it up wrong. i accidentally restricted it to 2 per column. apologies. a. On 2 Jun 2009, at 08:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

It would not let me select the first option, "Restructuring issues: By-laws and Charters".

Chuck

...

-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 8:27 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Topic for Sunday night Dinner in Sydney

Hi,

the poll is at: http://www.doodle.com/pfqvyuw75deerupq

a.