>
> If we cannot do a letter before our meeting with the GAC in Sydney, then
> shouldn't we at least develop talking points about this for our meeting with
> the GAC.
>
> Chuck
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 4:16 PM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If the council is willing to draft and send such a letter I
>> am sure it could.
>> Given the issue raised over the sending of our previous
>> letter, we would need to make sure that the process included
>> time for any constituencies that wished to comment before
>> sending. I am not sure what that means in terms of time, but
>> I am not certain we could complete it before Sydney.
>>
>> Alternatively I could draft a brief letter from the chair,
>> indicating that the interpretation is not, in my opinion,
>> necessarily consistent with GNSO position and that except
>> for specific issues where the GNSO council has published an
>> explicit consensus statement to the contrary, it remains
>> interested in seeing that the Policy recommendations made in
>> 2007 for new gTLDs be implemented.
>>
>> Are council members interested in either of these, a variant
>> or another option?
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 29 May 2009, at 11:51, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>>
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> I agree this position needs to be reiterated. How do you
>> suggest doing
>>> so?
>>> Would a formal email to Janis be the right way to go?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Stéphane
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 29/05/09 16:48, « Avri Doria » <
avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned in the call yesterday, I personally argue that the
>>>> GNSO and GAC are _not_ in agreement on the reservation of
>> names at
>>>> the 2nd level and that the GAC letter is mistaken in this
>> asumption.
>>>> In a conversation with Janis Karklins after he received the letter
>>>> and asked me if the GAC could so assume, I answered that it _could
>>>> not_.
>>>> I went on to point out that the only meaning that could be
>> taken from
>>>> our not explicitly discussing the reservation of names at
>> the second
>>>> level was that we had not come to full consensus on this yet and
>>>> discussions were still ongoing on the GNSO council's
>> position on this
>>>> subject. I can only assume that I was not clear enough or
>> explicit
>>>> enough in my comments to him.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that it is important to reiterate that the GNSO still
>>>> supports its supermajority decision in 2007 on the policy
>>>> recommendation that emerged from the bottom-up process and
>> that the
>>>> GNSO council viewed any deviations from those policy
>> recommendations
>>>> with concern, even in cases where it did not make an explicit
>>>> consensus based public statement.
>>>>
>>>> a.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 29 May 2009, at 10:32, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [To: council[at]
gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]
gnso.icann.org]
>>>>> [To: ga[at]
gnso.icann.org; announce[at]
gnso.icann.org]
>>>>> [To: regional-liaisons[at]
icann.org]
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28may09-en.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> GAC Responds to Board on Geographic Names
>>>>>
>>>>> 28 May 2009
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 May 2009, the GAC submitted a final letter [PDF, 72K]
>>>>>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-26may09-
>>>>> en.pdf
>>>>> responding to the ICANN Board's concerns about the ability to
>>>>> implement the provisions of article 2 of the GAC Principles
>>>>> regarding new gTLDs, particularly paragraph 2.71. The letter
>>>>> recommends, as a minimum, that the names contained in three
>>>>> internationally recognised lists must be reserved at the second
>>>>> level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs. However, other
>>>>> issues relating to geographic names at the top level and the
>>>>> potential misuse of the respective names at the second level
>>>>> requires further discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The GAC's letter is in response to the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board
>>>>> resolution, and subsequent letter from ICANN of 17 March, 2009
>>>>> seeking GAC members input on possible options to resolve the
>>>>> outstanding implementation issues regarding the protection of
>>>>> geographic names at the second level
>>>>> (
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/twomey-to-karklins-17mar09-en.pd
>>>>> f)
>>>>> [PDF, 245K].
>>>>>
>>>>> The GAC provided an interim response to this request on 24 April
>>>>> 2009
>>>>>
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf
>>>>> [PDF, 95K].
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 May 2009, the GNSO Council provided comments on the
>> proposal
>>>>> outlined in the GAC's letter of 24 April 2009,
>>>>>
http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-ltr-to-gac.pdf
>>>>> [PDF, 69K].
>>>>>
>>>>> The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25
>> May, 2009 and
>>>>> which will now be published 29 May, 2009.
>>>>>
>>
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24apr09-en.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen de Saint Géry
>>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>>>
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>