[council] RE: New gTLD Geographical Names

[Gomes, Chuck]

Thanks Kurt and David.

 

Chuck

 

From: Kurt Pritz [mailto:kurt.pritz at icann.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 12:53 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Council GNSO; David Olive
Subject: Re: New gTLD Geographical Names

 

Chuck:

 

Thank you for your thoughtful note. As a start, I have discussed this
issue set with David Olive who also understands the points you are
making. David indicated that a discussion with leadership of the
pertinent Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees might be the
next step: to determine how best to work toward consistent treatment of
geographical names while continuing to pursue the policy development and
implementation work now occurring in IDNs and gTLDs. 

 

Regards,

 

Kurt

 

 

 

 

 

On Jun 8, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:





Kurt,

I am writing this message in my capacity as Chair of the GNSO Council
but want to say up front that it has not been approved by the Council.
As you can see I have cc'd the Council.   

As you know, as a part of the New gTLD PDP, the GNSO Reserved Names
Working Group (RN-WG) spent considerable time considering the issues of
reserved names in the introduction of new gTLDs and the RN-WG
recommendations were approved by a super-majority of the GNSO Council as
a part of the overall new gTLD report that the Board later approved.  In
the long new gTLD implementation process that has followed many changes
have been proposed to those recommendations; in particular, quite a few
significant changes were added in Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4.

You are aware that significant effort went into the GNSO reserved names
recommendations; a lot of time and effort was devoted to debate issues
of concern for multiple interest groups including those outside the GNSO
such as the GAC and the ccNSO, and steps were taken to address those.
Since that time, there has been a steady chipping away of the GNSO
recommendations, particularly with regard to geographical names.

The purpose of this message is not to suggest that the changes are not
worth considering, but rather to point out that it is critical that the
GNSO be involved in the process of evaluating those proposed changes.
Geographical gTLD names may have an impact on ccTLD operators and on
governments, so  the ccNSO and the GAC should certainly contribute to
the process.  At the same time, there appears to recently be a trend
toward deferring any issues with regard to geographical gTLD names
primarily to the ccNSO and the GAC.

The RN-WG believed that there is reasonable justification for
accommodating some of the geographical name concerns of ccTLDs and
governments in the introduction of new gTLDs as can be seen in the
recommendations that were made (i.e., reserving 2-character LDH gTLDs,
giving governments the standing to file disputes, etc.).  The RN-WG also
recognized that there are competitive issues between ccTLDs and gTLDs
and that there may be cases where Internet users needs might be better
met by geographical gTLD than a geographical ccTLD.

My point is this: It is not sufficient to refer geographical gTLD name
issues just to the ccNSO and the GAC.  They can certainly be a part of
the ccNSO IDN PDP, and be a part of GAC discussions, but not at the
exclusion of the GNSO.

Chuck Gomes

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100613/56eff479/attachment.html>