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

Sun Jul 30 01:51:24 EEST 2017

Hi Avri,

Thanks for the comment, I concur with you that having such mention is not
helpful and can backfire.

Best,

Rafik

2017-07-30 2:05 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org>:

> (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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170730/de451980/attachment.htm>