[ccwg-internet-governance] FW: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org
Tue Oct 25 23:23:31 UTC 2016


Becky cc as above

Good evening and many thanks for this and for contributing.  The African proposal for a modification to the (existing) Resolution 47 will likely be discussed on Thursday.

ICANN, itself, cannot speak (we have no locus as are not a sector member); but clearly we are hopeful that several governments will.  There is indeed hardly any room for compromise, as you rightly point out.  We are talking to participants here noting the work taking place in the GAC and elsewhere on these issues.

Many regards

Nigel

From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Date: Tuesday 25 October 2016 21:32
To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>, ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
Cc: Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk<mailto:chris at disspain.uk>>, "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>" <bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org<mailto:kummer at isoc.org>>, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [ccwg-internet-governance] FW: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

Nigel – I feel pretty strongly that ICANN can’t compromise on this – just say no.  There is no basis in international law that entitles countries to control use of geo-indicators in this fashion.  There is no basis for doing this work at ITU-T.  If ICANN appears to be caving, trying to find a compromise, etc., you will lose the governments that are out there defending ICANN on this one.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz[neustar.biz]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neustar.biz&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=RrrXyaBfa00GH1liTedM3FwobVakuhJ-qs1N8-Ji8VE&m=mz0VT8C_wKBVogEkH3RgnAAc6gyhcDPWsA8be5Pjy7E&s=VfAUUZDbQcp3Z1Ypi3jzejK-hhpNi5M7DPCQLLZJUIQ&e=>

From: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>
Date: Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 7:33 PM
To: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org<mailto:ccwg-internet-governance at icann.org>>
Subject: [ccwg-internet-governance] FW: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

Colleagues

Good evening.  Following the exchanges concerning proposals in front of the ITU WTSA Conference that starts here in Hammamet on Tuesday, the below may be of interest.  We are hoping that any concerns / views on the WTSA RES 47 proposal may be fed to governments attending the WTSA discussions this week.

Best

Nigel



From: Internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration-bounces at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetcollaboration-bounces at elists.isoc.org>> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>
Date: Monday 24 October 2016 01:10
To: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org>>, Elist internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

Colleagues

Good evening and many thanks for responses on this list on the African Group Resolution 47 proposal.  Concerns on it have been raised in several quarters of the ICANN Community, not least in a Call on Friday of the CCWG on Internet Governance.

I copy below the operative part of the proposed revised Resolution;


instructs ITU-T Study Group 2
1                 to continue studies, and to work with Member States and Sector Members, in their respective roles, recognizing the activities of other appropriate entities, to review Member States' ccTLD experiences,;
2                 to study necessary measures that should be taken to ensure that country, territory and regional names must be protected and reserved from registration as new gTLDs; and that these names should include but not be limited to capital cities, cities, sub-national place names (county, province or state) and geographical indications;
3                 to study, in collaboration with relevant bodies, on ways and means to maintain the right of Member States to request the reservation and to oppose the delegation of any top-level domain (even if it is not included on that list) on the basis of its sensitivity to regional and national interests,

instructs the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau
to take appropriate action to facilitate the above and to report to the ITU Council annually regarding the progress achieved in this area,

invites Member States
1                 to contribute to these activities,;
2                 to enhance national reference in the ISCO 3166-2 list with different divisions and subdivisions in order to satisfy the national requirements and needs;
3                 to submit requests to ensure that regions and sub-regions are included in this important reference list,

further invites Member States
to take appropriate steps within their national legal frameworks to ensure that issues related to delegation of country code top-level domains are resolved.





In terms of instructs ITU-T Study Group 2the study of measures to be taken to ensure “protection” of certain names is, we think,  inappropriate given that discussion on which names to be protected is under discussion at ICANN, both in a Working Group of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and in a Cross Community Working Group (made up on a wide range of Commnuity actors).  Measures to ensure protection will be taken by ICANN as is deemed appropriate following agreements on these discussions.  It is therefore not at all certain what this duplication proposed by SG2 of work already being taken forward by governments would achieve.  It should also be noted that, as recognised in Resolution 47, that policy decisions concerning ccTLDs are for sovereign governments to make.

Under invites member State – we understand that these matters are non-trivial and would involve work in ISO and in member Standard Organisations;

Under further invites Member States it is clearly for member States to discuss such issues as they see fit, including with ICANN.


Will report from WTSA on developments on this proposal this week.  Am hoping that concerned stakeholders will have reported views back to their governments attending this ITU event.

Best  wishes

Nigel

Nigel Hickson
VP; UN and IGO Engagement
Geneva

Mobile:  +41 79 951 9625
Twitter:  @njhickson




















•       The amendments – from African Union – are made on an “old” Resolution that was crafted to highlight that it was member governments and not ICANN that had rights re ccTLDs.  This is annoying; especially as the amended proposal came very late after the African preparatory meeting had taken place in Egypt in early September; it was just published (14th October);
•       We are consulting internally and externally to secure understanding of governments as to why this proposal is not appropriate; talks are ongoing with the USG and the UK; the host government of Tunisia, the African Union, THE GAC chair and members, the I* Community and other key players;
•       We will make it clear that that the proposed mandate of the Study Group if difficult to be taken forward and directly conflicts with ICANN’s mandate;


From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones at icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday 20 October 2016 18:26
To: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>, Elist internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

The language in the resolution directing ITU-T SG2 to study measures on protecting geographic names in new gTLDs and protecting names of capital cities, cities and subnational place names is the wrong forum. There is an existing cross-community working group within ICANN looking at this. Perhaps the language could recommend participating in this forum or to participate in appropriate working groups where policy is made on delegation of TLDs.

The resolution makes no reference to the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (unless this is to be inferred by “collaboration with relevant bodies”), which has responsibility for what goes on the ISO 3166-2 list. ISO 3166-2 is about country and territory names. There is no room on this two-character list for “different divisions and subdivisions” as envisioned by the proposed language, although that would be up to ISO 3166/MA to make amendments to their list, not ITU-T.

Patrick

From: Internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration-bounces at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetcollaboration-bounces at elists.isoc.org>> on behalf of Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org<mailto:nigel.hickson at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM
To: Elist internetcollaboration <internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetcollaboration at elists.isoc.org>>
Subject: [Internetcollaboration] ITU WTSA - AFRICAN GROUP PROPOSAL - RESOLUTION 47

Colleagues

Good evening.  While not wishing to interfere with the busy schedule of colleagues; think the attached proposal –to be discussed at WTSA starting next week -  is of potential interest for us in the Technical Community.

While the material on .Africa is primarily relevant to ICANN; the operative proposals for the ITU (see last page) arguably have a wider relevance.

Would welcome observations.

Best

Nigel


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-internet-governance/attachments/20161025/ab8392e8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ccwg-internet-governance mailing list