During the meeting I am 99%
sure he said ?at?.
I understand the diplomacy
Sent: Friday, 30
October 2009 1:41 PM
To: Adrian Kinderis;
Subject: AW: [council] Board Meeting - GAC
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
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Adrian Kinderis
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Oktober 2009
An: GNSO Council
Betreff: [council] Board Meeting -
I stood up in the Board Meeting today and asked about
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
[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
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
- the need to explore track
differentiation between categories;
- the need to respect national
public interests and sovereign rights regarding strings with geographical
- 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.