|
During the meeting I am 99% sure
he said “at”. I understand the diplomacy
point. Adrian Kinderis From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx] Adrian, GAC seems to be more diplomatic by saying they'd like to
comment "before" Nairobi - in case a new draft (final) version will
be available with appropriate time offset. Best
regards Von:
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis 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. |