|
All, 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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.
|