Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Title: Re: [council] GNSO Council letter to the GAC
Hi Kristina,
Considering the number of positive reactions received so far, it would be nice to know what in the letter is causing you to object.
Depending on the nature of the objections, it may be that I can then propose some edits which despite the time constraints you are under with the IRT, you may be able to agree on.
Let me know if that helps.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 12/05/09 23:40, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
I can't support this letter. Because I am in the middle of the IRT's 3-day F2F, I am not in a position to propose revised language. Given these contraints, it would be OK with me if the Council nonetheless wanted to send the letter and note in it that I have abstained.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:06 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