[council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique

Adrian Kinderis adrian at ausregistry.com.au
Fri Oct 30 02:43:09 UTC 2009

During the meeting I am 99% sure he said "at".

I understand the diplomacy point.

Adrian Kinderis

From: KnobenW at telekom.de [mailto:KnobenW at telekom.de]
Sent: Friday, 30 October 2009 1:41 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique


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

Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009 03:19
An: GNSO Council
Betreff: [council] Board Meeting - GAC Communique


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 at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091030/36e41d7e/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list