Stephane
Excellent, I can find no further suggestions to offer. I do
like Edmon’s wording also as you included it in the draft.
There may be some value to Appendix Avri suggested; but then
again it would make it feel more like a document than a letter of response.
Take care
Terry
From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:06 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Following on, for clarity here is the draft
modified to take Edmon’s comments into account.
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 15:51, « Stéphane Van Gelder » <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> a
écrit :
Edmon,
Ì think that is a very useful suggestion, thank you. As the clock is running, I
am copying this to the Council list.
I am fine with you edit and will amend the draft accordingly unless anyone
objects.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 12:25, « Edmon Chung » <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
a écrit :
sorry for the late response... I do see that
the 48 hr clock started clicking so did not want to send this to the council
list unless you feel comfortable about it...
you had: " No
such restrictions are imposed on existing gTLD registries and we feel it would
be
inappropriate to attempt to use the new gTLD program to introduce new
contractual
obligations previously not requested or deemed necessary."
I don't think that is entirely true... in our contract and in all the ones in
the s round, there is a clause:
" All
geographic and geopolitical names contained in the ISO 3166-1 list from time to
time shall initially be reserved at both the second level and at all other
levels within the TLD at which the Registry Operator provides for
registrations. All names shall be reserved both in English and in all related
official languages as may be directed by ICANN or the GAC."
What this effectively means is that registries have had to use the other ISO
lists previously already to produce the "reserved both in English
and in all related official languages" part.
Then of course there is the other part in the agreement that says:
"In addition, Registry Operator shall reserve names of territories,
distinct geographic locations, and other geographic and geopolitical names as
ICANN may direct from time to time."
Would like to suggest edits as follows:
Restrictions are already imposed on existing gTLD registries in this regard,
especially with regards to those adopted for the sTLD round of gTLDs. We
feel that current contractual obligations are already appropriate and new
contractual obligations maybe unnecessary.
Edmon
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Dear all,
In a letter dated April 24 2009, GAC Chair Janis Karklins wrote to ICANN CEO
Paul Twomey on the subject of geographical names and the new gTLD process.
At our Council meeting last week, it was decided that we should respond to this
letter and I volunteered to write a draft. We agreed that our response should
be sent to the GAC asap, preferably by the end of this week, and Avri informed
the GAC that they should expect a response from the GNSO Council by this
Friday.
In order to fine-tune our draft response, a team was set up and I submitted my
draft to the team yesterday.
The team responded very quickly in order to meet the Council’s Friday
deadline and considered my draft “good to go”, with one addition by
David Maher and a comment by Avri, both of which have been included in the
draft letter we are submitting to the full Council today (see attached).
Could you please review and let me know of any further changes you would like
to make, or of your approval, so that Avri may then send the finished letter to
the GAC on Friday.
My thanks to the members of the drafting team: David Maher - Avri Doria - Nacho
Amadoz - Edmon Chung - Brian Cute - Ken Stubbs - Olga Cavalli - Tony
Harris - Terry Davis – William Drake.
Best,
Stéphane Van Gelder