<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>I have a slightly different view of this
and question what’s to be gained from sending another letter to the GAC
at this stage when we’ll meet with them quite soon?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>As Avri pointed out</span></font><font
size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:black'>, ideally the process should include time for Constituencies to comment
before it’s sent and that means it’s only likely to go just prior to
the <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sydney</st1:place></st1:City> meeting.
With many participants in the GAC and GNSO leaving home a few days earlier to travel,
that’s a pretty tight timeframe.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Overall, I’d tend to support Chuck’s
suggestion that we spend that time developing talking points for the face to face
session.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Tony</span></font><font size=2
color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Olga Cavalli<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 30 May 2009 02:49<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Stéphane Van Gelder<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Gomes,
Chuck</st1:PersonName>; <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Avri Doria</st1:PersonName>;
Council GNSO<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [council] GAC
Responds to Board on Geographic Names</span></font><span lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>I think this letter is a
good idea.<br>
Olga<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <<a
href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Would anyone be strongly opposed to a brief letter from Avri as she suggest?<br>
After all, it's pretty clear that the GNSO Council is not in agreement with<br>
the reservation of names at the 2nd level as suggested by the GAC letter...<br>
<br>
Stéphane<br>
<br>
<br>
Le 29/05/09 22:53, « <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Gomes, Chuck</st1:PersonName> »
<<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> a écrit :<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
><br>
> If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Sydney</st1:place></st1:City>, then<br>
> shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting
with<br>
> the GAC.<br>
><br>
> Chuck<br>
><br>
>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>> [mailto:<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>]
On Behalf Of <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Avri Doria</st1:PersonName><br>
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM<br>
>> To: Council GNSO<br>
>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I<br>
>> am sure it could.<br>
>> Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous<br>
>> letter, we would need to make sure that the process included<br>
>> time for any constituencies that wished to comment before<br>
>> sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but<br>
>> I am not certain we could complete it before <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Sydney</st1:place></st1:City>.<br>
>><br>
>> Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair,<br>
>> indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion,<br>
>> necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except<br>
>> for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an<br>
>> explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains<br>
>> interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in<br>
>> 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.<br>
>><br>
>> Are council members interested in either of these, a variant<br>
>> or another option?<br>
>><br>
>> a.<br>
>><br>
>> On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Avri,<br>
>>><br>
>>> I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you<br>
>> suggest doing<br>
>>> so?<br>
>>> Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Stéphane<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Le 29/05/09 16:48, « <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Avri Doria</st1:PersonName>
» <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> a écrit :<br>
>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> As I mentioned in the call yesterday, I personally argue
that the<br>
>>>> GNSO and GAC are _not_ in agreement on the reservation
of<br>
>> names at<br>
>>>> the 2nd level and that the GAC letter is mistaken in this<br>
>> asumption.<br>
>>>> In a conversation with Janis Karklins after he received the
letter<br>
>>>> and asked me if the GAC could so assume, I answered that it
_could<br>
>>>> not_.<br>
>>>> I went on to point out that the only meaning that could be<br>
>> taken from<br>
>>>> our not explicitly discussing the reservation of names at<br>
>> the second<br>
>>>> level was that we had not come to full consensus on this yet
and<br>
>>>> discussions were still ongoing on the GNSO council's<br>
>> position on this<br>
>>>> subject. I can only assume that I was not clear enough
or<br>
>> explicit<br>
>>>> enough in my comments to him.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I believe that it is important to reiterate that the GNSO
still<br>
>>>> supports its supermajority decision in 2007 on the policy<br>
>>>> recommendation that emerged from the bottom-up process and<br>
>> that the<br>
>>>> GNSO council viewed any deviations from those policy<br>
>> recommendations<br>
>>>> with concern, even in cases where it did not make an explicit<br>
>>>> consensus based public statement.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> a.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 29 May 2009, at 10:32, <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Glen de
Saint Géry</st1:PersonName> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> [To: council[at]<a href="http://gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso.icann.org</a>; liaison6c[at]<a href="http://gnso.icann.org"
target="_blank">gnso.icann.org</a>]<br>
>>>>> [To: ga[at]<a href="http://gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">gnso.icann.org</a>;
announce[at]<a href="http://gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">gnso.icann.org</a>]<br>
>>>>> [To: regional-liaisons[at]<a href="http://icann.org"
target="_blank">icann.org</a>]<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may09-en.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may09-en.htm</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 28 May 2009<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF,
72K]<br>
>>>>> <a
href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-</a><br>
>>>>> en.pdf<br>
>>>>> responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability
to<br>
>>>>> implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC
Principles<br>
>>>>> regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The
letter<br>
>>>>> recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in
three<br>
>>>>> internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the
second<br>
>>>>> level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However,
other<br>
>>>>> issues relating to geographic names at the top level and
the<br>
>>>>> potential misuse of the respective names at the second
level<br>
>>>>> requires further discussion.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN
Board<br>
>>>>> resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March,
2009<br>
>>>>> seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve
the<br>
>>>>> outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection
of<br>
>>>>> geographic names at the second level<br>
>>>>> (<a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08</a><br>
>>>>> and<br>
>>>>><br>
>> <a
href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pd"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pd</a><br>
>>>>> f)<br>
>>>>> [PDF, 245K].<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24
April<br>
>>>>> 2009<br>
>>>>> <a
href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf</a><br>
>>>>> [PDF, 95K].<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the<br>
>> proposal<br>
>>>>> outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009,<br>
>>>>> <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf</a><br>
>>>>> [PDF, 69K].<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25<br>
>> May, 2009 and<br>
>>>>> which will now be published 29 May, 2009.<br>
>>>>><br>
>> <a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm"
target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Glen de Saint Géry</st1:PersonName><br>
>>>>> GNSO Secretariat<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>