Governments (like all entrenched interests) want special rights to  
new generic top-level domains.   The Cairo meeting will be an  
important meeting.  See below.

Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Kurt Pritz <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: October 2, 2008 6:06:55 PM PDT
> To: Council GNSO <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [council] Council meeting: New gTLD Update
>
> Council Members:
>
> Thank you for the opportunity on last week's Council call to  
> provide information regarding the current state of implementation  
> planning for the GNSO's new gTLD policy recommendations. I thought  
> I would take few minutes of your time to reiterate some of the  
> points made during our discussion and indicate possible paths for  
> Council and community discussion.
>
> As you may recall, one of the items described during the Council  
> call was a recent discussion with the GAC to obtain a better  
> understanding of the issues raised in their policy advice to the  
> ICANN Board: "GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs."  In that meeting  
> (and earlier ones in Delhi and Paris), GAC members provided some  
> detail as to the expectations of
> governments and the possible protections to be afforded to  
> geographical names in the new gTLD application and evaluation process.
>
> As a result of those consultations, ICANN will post two documents.  
> The first will be a letter from Paul Twomey to GAC Chair Janis  
> Karklins that: (1) repeats back the meeting  discussion points in  
> order to ensure understanding; (2) provides a potential model for  
> going ahead with some of the protections the government  
> representatives are requesting; and (3) describes areas where  
> requested protections would be problematic to implement or enforce.  
> The second document, for public  comment, review and modification,  
> is the upcoming draft of the new gTLD "RFP" - the guidebook that  
> will be provided to potential applicants. The RFP will also  
> describe some of those potential protections.
>
> Those documents are being presented for public discussion and do  
> not represent a final implementation model.
>
> The documents are intended to highlight discrepancies between the  
> report of the GNSO Reserved Names working group and the GAC advice  
> to the Board by describing potential implementation details. I.e.,  
> creating potential operational processes brings to light more  
> clearly issues for implementation discussion.  They will inform a  
> discussion in Cairo where there will be opportunity for additional  
> consultations with the GAC and the GNSO.
>
> The draft RFP will be posted and discussed in Cairo, and will be  
> modified through public dialogue. It is planned that the draft RFP  
> will be revised and posted again before a final version is posted  
> for ICANN Board approval. The Board will be informed by this  
> upcoming dialogue as it considers the final implementation model of  
> the completed and approved GNSO policy recommendation for approval.
>
> Sorry this took so long to describe (I thought the note would be  
> shorter.) I hope the intent and meaning are clear. Denise or I  
> would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
>
> Thanks for your time & regards,
>
> Kurt
>
>
> Kurt Pritz
>
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, #330
> Marina del Rey. CA  90292
>
> +1.310.301.5809 (office)
> +1.310.400.4184 (mobile)
>
>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]