I think this letter is a good idea.<br>Olga<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/5/29 Stéphane Van Gelder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<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, « Gomes, Chuck » <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> a écrit :<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, 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 Avri Doria<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 Sydney.<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, « Avri Doria » <<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, Glen de Saint Géry 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>
>>>>> Glen de Saint Géry<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>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>