[NCSG-PC] Fwd: []council to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC Communique

Sat Jul 29 20:05:01 EEST 2017

(observer)

Hi,

on the geo-names issue:

I wonder why mention a ccnso pdp - that seems to be tempting the bears.

I would remove  "rather than initiate a ccNSO PDP on country and
territory names at the top-level"

Otherwise i do not see the problem.

avri

On 27-Jul-17 20:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> hi all,
>
> the discussion about the text for geonames in GNSO response is
> ongoing. we should agree on what can be acceptable for NCSG.
> @Avri any thought on this? is the new text helpful for the subsequent
> procedures WG?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Austin, Donna via council* <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Date: 2017-07-28 0:11 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the
> GAC Communique
> To: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com
> <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>, GNSO Council List
> <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>"
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Jeff Neuman
> <jeff.neuman at valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com>>
>
>
> Heather, All
>
>  
>
> During an RySG call yesterday there was considerable discussion about
> the merits of each of the proposed options relating to the geographic
> names.
>
>  
>
> I understand (and sincerely apologise) this request is late in the
> day; however, the RySG has requested that consideration be given to a
> potential third option that would serve to replace both Option A and
> Option B. As you will see, this third option contains the main
> elements of both Option A and B, and also addresses the comment from
> Paul McGrady that the response call out the community discussions in
> Johannesburg:
>
>  
>
> /The GNSO Council also takes note of the “Geographic Names as
> Top-Level Domains“ section of the communiqué restating previous advice
> and positions. Among those positions are references that imply that
> certain geographic top-level domains should be addressed by, and only
> through, a ccNSO PDP. With respect to that position we note that
> rather than initiative a ccNSO PDP on country and territory names at
> the top-level, the ccNSO established a Cross Community Working Group
> on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CCWG UCTN) that was jointly
> chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO. The CCWG UCTN recently produced a
> final report, but was unable to provide recommendations on the use of
> country and territory names as TLDs, beyond the use of two-characters.
> The GNSO strongly believes that these issues are currently within the
> scope and charter of the GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD
> Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP). As a result of the recent Cross
> Community Discussions on geographic names conducted at ICANN 59, the
> SubPro PDP is establishing a new Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at
> the Top Level and inviting representatives from each of the SOs and
> ACs to form a Leadership Team for that Work Track. The GNSO Council
> encourages participation from the community, including the GAC, in
> that SubPro PDP to ensure a multi-stakeholder bottom up solution to
> this issue./
>
> / /
>
> /This approach is consistent with the GAC’s position also contained in
> the “Geographic Names as Top-Level Domains” section of the communiqué
> “ … that any further process of policy review and development should:
> (a) continue to allow all stakeholder groups to participate equally;
> (b) take into account the history and rationale of the arrangements
> currently in place; and (c) apply an evidence-based policy approach to
> any proposals for future arrangements.”/
>
>  
>
> As Rubens has already noted on the Council list, the respective
> authors of Options A and B both recognize potential shortcomings of
> their suggested text and to that end both Rubens and Jeff both support
> the proposed amendment.
>
> Thank you for considering this late amendment, which serves to replace
> both Option A and Option B.
>
>  
>
> Donna
>
>  
>
> *From:*council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>
> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest
> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2017 5:54 AM
> *To:* GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
> *Cc:* gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [council] DOODLE to finalise updated GNSO Review of the GAC
> Communique
>
>  
>
> Dear Council colleagues,
>
>  
>
> We have reached a point of near finalization of the GNSO Response to
> the GAC Johannesburg Communique. The one outstanding item amongst the
> members of the revision team is the text relating to geographic names.
> You'll see this text in the attached draft as Option A and Option B. 
>
>  
>
> For our input to reach the Board in time for its meeting with the GAC
> in the week of 14 August, we cannot push this out to the next Council
> meeting in late August. For our response to be timely and effective,
> we need a Communique Response that we can agree on in full before it
> goes to electronic vote.
>
>  
>
> We had scheduled an electronic Council vote to open this Thursday, but
> we don't yet have a final text to vote on. Hence I propose we delay
> the electronic vote to open next Monday to give us all time to
> consider and take instructions (if appropriate) on Option A and B. 
>
>  
>
> To help us get to final, votable text, please could you review the
> attached and complete the Doodle to express support for either Option
> A or B on geo names. 
>
>
> *Doodle:* https://icannorg.doodle.com/poll/yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__icannorg.doodle.com_poll_yqdx3g5gdfi5uz2t&d=DwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=YCVgcMubkaHFRHLFtfeKImXTW8Nipr07HJGcexh2XrE&s=kIS8BXv4sOul3g4opzWC6lqtvhe6Vhm1XpK9VFYJwZM&e=>
>
>  
>
> *Timeline*:
>
> ·Monday, 24 July: Doodle (to select Option A or B on geo names text) opens
>
> ·Friday, 28 July: Doodle closes
>
> ·Monday, 31 July: Electronic vote on Council motion approving the GNSO
> Response to GAC Joburg Communique (including preferred Option A or B)
> opens
>
> ·Friday, 4 August: Electronic vote closes
>
> ·Monday, 7 August: GNSO Response to GAC Communique transmitted to Board
>
>  
>
> Many thanks to Marika and the Secretariat team for helping to
> coordinate both the Doodle and e-vote in such a tight timeframe. Also
> noting that James and Donna are both away today, so I'm on point to
> shepherd this through.
>
>  
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
>  
>
> Heather
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus