[Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC

Fri Aug 26 13:11:27 UTC 2016

Hi Susan

Yes I referred to gNSO with this statement as gTLDs are mostly run for
profit and ccTLDs by non-profits with other ideals in mind. Of course there
are exceptions to this rule on both sides.
Balanced CWG is the way forward.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
wrote:

> Hi Timo
>
> Could you explain please who and what you mean by “give the power of
> decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals in
> mind”?  From the context it seems you refer to the GNSO, so I would like to
> be sure if I understand you correctly.
>
> thanks
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee]
> *Sent:* 26 August 2016 13:04
> *To:* Susan Payne
> *Cc:* Annebeth Lange; Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken;
> ctn-crosscom at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call
> scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> First of all thank you all for accepting me to this CWG - this has been my
> first experience with such processes. It has been educational.
>
>
>
> Anyhow, I would like to express my strong disagreement with the
> recommendation to even mention GNSO PDP as a viable solution to move
> forward with these issues. In my view this can be solved only in the
> balanced cross community workgroup with representatives from all the
> necessary groups (ccnso, gnso, gac etc). WIth that said I am very sad that
> this CWG was not able to achieve more. We are still talking about country
> names and codes here so for me it seems the worst idea possible to give the
> power of decision over these strings to group with solely commercial goals
> in mind. Please do not do that!
>
>
>
> Let's specifiy what was lacking with this CWG and propose to form new one.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Timo Võhmar
>
> Head of development
>
> Estonian Internet Foundation
>
> www.internet.ee
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
> wrote:
>
> I would like to add my thanks to Joke for her excellent draft progress
> report.  Thanks also to Heather and Annebeth for their comments and
> suggestions – here are a couple from me.
>
>
>
> Regarding the recommendations section I note that in Annebeth’s version,
> which I worked from as I thought it was the latest, some of the
> recommendations Heather proposed were not included.  In full, those
> recommendations are:
>
>
>
> In light of the need for further work, the complexity of the issue at
> hand, the aforementioned inconsistencies between various ICANN policies,
> and the limited mandate of the CWG on the use of Country and Territory
> Names as TLDs, the CWG recommends that:
>
> 1)      The ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to
> geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined
> in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and
> discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names at all
> levels of the DNS. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether
> a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
>
> 2)      Future work should take place with the authority of a policy
> development process under ICANN’s Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or
> scope of works that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will
> inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of
> this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group’s work can or will be
> incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN’s Bylaws. In this regard,
> we note that the use of geographic names in future new gTLDs falls within
> the scope of issues to be addressed by the now-formed and operative GNSO
> PDP on Subsequent Procedures.
>
> 3)      Future policy development work must facilitate all-inclusive
> dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity
> to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine
> whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am strongly in favour of including these recommendations.  If we are to
> recommend that all policy work on geographic terms be consolidated to
> ensure harmonisation (which I agree that it should) then I think we must
> also address the question of where that consolidation should happen and
> make our recommendation.  The PDP has a formalised status under the ICANN
> Bylaws and a clear process.  The treatment of the outcomes of the PDP by
> the Board are also clearly set out, with a process of consultation to be
> followed where the Board determines that the recommendations “are not in
> the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”.
>
>
>
> In addition, as Heather has pointed out, the issue of geo names in future
> “rounds” of New gTLDs also already within the Charter of the Subsequent
> Procedures PDP which has a large number of participants (133) and is not
> limited to the GNSO but includes members of the ALAC, GAC and unaffiliated
> individuals.  I believe members of the ccNSO also already participate (even
> if not identified as such on the list of participants), since many ccTLD
> operators also have an interest in new gTLDs.  The PDP work has been
> underway for some months considering overarching issues, and the working
> group is now breaking into work tracks  to focus on specific groupings of
> related issues.  Country and territory names fall within the
> Legal/Regulatory work track and would sensibly be dealt with by that work
> track when it considers other, related, issues around the reservation of
> names, including *other* geographic names which are not within the scope
> of this CWG, and names with other sensitivity (which are not geo names).
>
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* |
> *Valideus Ltd *
> E: susan.payne at valideus.com
> D: +44 20 7421 8255
> T: +44 20 7421 8299
> M: +44 7971 661175
>
>
>
>
>
> *Valideus August Public Holiday Opening Hours*
>
> The Valideus offices will be closed for a UK public holiday on Monday 29th
> August, reopening on Tuesday 30th August 2016.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Annebeth Lange
> *Sent:* 24 August 2016 08:24
> *To:* Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom at icann.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call
> scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Joke, dear Heather, CWG colleagues,
>
>
>
> I join Heather in thanking Joke for her excellent work in producing this
> draft for a progress report. I have gone through it with special attention
> to your comments and input, Heather, and enclose a version with my
> questions and comments.
>
>
>
> I encourage my fellow colleagues to read the document and give input. We
> have to decide how to go forward with this, and it would be great to have
> opinions and suggestions from WG members.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest
> *Date: *Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 04:40
> *To: *Joke Braeken, "ctn-crosscom at icann.org"
> *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call
> scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear Joke, CWG colleagues,
>
>
>
> Tremendous thanks to Joke for her work on producing the first draft of our
> status report and recommendations, particularly while Steve Chan recovered
> on medical leave and Emily Barabas transitioned in temporarily as GNSO
> support staff.
>
>
>
> In my view this paper is a good start, and there is a bit more we can do.
> It is important that we keep this document relatively short, clear and to
> the point - otherwise we risk losing the community's attention. With this
> in mind, I propose that we add footnotes and names of earlier documents,
> groups, etc. to ensure the community has the complete picture of the work
> in this area (as indeed this is one of our key justifications for
> terminating our efforts - the multiplicity of policy initiatives on geo
> names) while streamlining this progress report by pushing the reader to
> those other documents for more detail/substance.
>
>
>
> I also suggest that we amend references to ISO 3166 from "list" to
> "standard", as that is a lesson we've very helpfully learned from Jaap.
>
>
>
> Finally, I believe we should be more clear and direct on our
> recommendations at the end, as ultimately we're in the best position to
> advise as to what should happen next and, crucially, what is needed for
> that to succeed (ie, we know best what our deficiencies were as a CWG, and
> have a view as to how to fix them).
>
>
>
> I look forward to our meeting next week and the opportunity to discuss
> this progress report in more detail.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Heather
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>
> on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39
> *To:* ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call
> scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> A short reminder that the next call for the CWG-UCTN WG  is scheduled for
> next week Monday 29 August, at 21 UTC.
>
> You are kindly invited to provide us with your input, comments and
> feedback on the attached strawman paper by the end of this week.
>
> Thank you!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> joke.braeken at icann.org
>
>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>
> *Date: *Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57
> *To: *"ctn-crosscom at icann.org" <ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
> *Subject: *post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday
> 29 August, 21 UTC
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Following the events at ICANN56 in Helsinki, staff drafted a strawman
> paper, as requested by the CWG-UCTN co-chairs. The attached paper
>
> lays out the Group’s discussion to-date, and provides the working group’s
> conclusions and recommendations in relation to the Group’s main objective.
>
>
>
> This document aims at generating a discussion among the group, regarding
> the next steps, taking into account that the main objective of the WG is to
> provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and
> uniform definitional framework that is applicable across the respective
> SO's and AC's defining rules guiding the use of country and territory names
> as top-level domains that, ideally, can be applied objectively to alpha-2
> and alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 codes as well as full country and territory names.
>
>
>
> *Next meetings:*
>
>
>
> 1.       *Monday 22 August, 21 UTC.*CANCELLED.
>
> The co-chairs preferred to allow WG members sufficient time to review the
> post-Helsinki strawman paper, and to comment on it
>
> 2.       *Monday 29 August, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow. On
> the agenda: discussion of the post-Helsinki strawman paper
>
> 3.       *Monday 19 September, 21 UTC.* A calendar invite will follow
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
> joke.braeken at icann.org
>
>
>
> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
>
> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
>
> http://ccnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160826/8d97cd84/attachment-0001.html>