RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Geographic and Geopolitical Names

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mike.  Existing registries already have to comply with national
laws.  I made the change because the WG focus is on new gTLDs, not
existing contract conditions, but I have no problem with changing the
language.

Tim Denton: please note this as a possible edit.

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:Michael@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:11 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'GNSO RN WG'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Geographic and Geopolitical Names
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> While on first glance I had no objections to your original 
> changes, upon closer review there was one change that you did 
> propose that I believe does represent a substantial change in 
> the thinking of the group. I just want to flag this point in 
> case I am unable to attend today's call because of prior 
> commitments that may run late.
> 
> In the mark ups to our recommendation you added the following 
> qualifying language "for new gTLDs". The thinking within the 
> group, and correct me if I am wrong Avri or John, is that we 
> wanted ALL registries (both exisiting and future) to comply 
> with their national laws. 
> 
> Therefore, I would strike the additional qualifying language 
> that you had added restricting our recommendations to just 
> "new gTLDs".
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:45 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; GNSO RN WG
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Geographic and Geopolitical Names
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> I just finished going through this report in detail.  Because 
> I was going through it carefully I went ahead and made some 
> minor edits.  I also made some additions to the 
> recommendations to cover IDNs and 3rd level and a 
> recommendation for possible further work.
> 
> Because the subgroup of Mike, Avri and Jon came to consensus 
> on the recommendations, I would first like to receive their 
> feedback regarding my changes.  At the same time, I encourage 
> all WG members to review this and comment because we are just 
> about out of time.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
>  
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or 
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information 
> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
> under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or 
> disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
> message in error, please notify sender immediately and 
> destroy/delete the original transmission." 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 10:52 AM
> > To: 'GNSO RN WG'
> > Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Geographic and Geopolitical Names
> > 
> > Hello All:
> > 
> > The good news is that our group has reached consensus on both 
> > recommendations for the top level and the second level regarding 
> > geographic identifiers. Although I am sure everyone will 
> want to read 
> > the nuances of our comprehensive report on this subject matter, to 
> > expedite our deliberations given the short time frame I 
> have excerpted 
> > our recommendations and included them below.
> > 
> > 
> > Top Level:
> > 
> > In order to approve the introduction of new gTLDs using geographic 
> > identifiers, ICANN shall require the solicitation of input from GAC
> > members(s) and/or government(s) associated with the potential 
> > geographic
> > string.   
> >  
> > Additionally, Registries incorporated under the laws of those 
> > countries that have expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO 
> > Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and 
> > Geographical Indications as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly 
> > ("Member States"), or have other related applicable national laws 
> > shall take appropriate action to comply with those guidelines and 
> > those national laws.
> > Registries incorporated under the laws of those countries that have 
> > not expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing 
> Committee 
> > on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical 
> > Indications as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly ("Non-Member 
> > States") shall take appropriate action to comply with any related 
> > applicable national laws.
> >  
> > Second Level:
> > 
> > Registries incorporated under the laws of those countries that have 
> > expressly supported the guidelines of the WIPO Standing 
> Committee on 
> > the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical 
> Indications 
> > as adopted by the WIPO General Assembly ("Member States") 
> should take 
> > appropriate action to promptly implement protections that 
> are in line 
> > with these WIPO guidelines and are in accordance with the relevant 
> > national laws of the applicable Member State.
> >  
> > 
> > The final report is attached but is subject to some final
> > editing, which we will incorporate with any other feedback 
> > the group might have.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Michael Palage on behalf of the Geographic RN Team
> > 
> > 
> 
>