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

Fri Aug 26 13:47:42 UTC 2016

Timo,

It doesn’t matter whether or not ccTLDs are run as non-profits; or gTLDs are run as for-profits:

Yes, the ccNSO is made up of ccTLDs operators.

No, the gNSO is not made up of only gTLD operators! They represent themselves in the RySG (Registry Stakeholder Group). But that is just ONE of many stakeholders with a seat at the table of the gNSO:

    Commercial Stakeholder Group

        Commercial Business Users

        Intellectual Property

        Internet Service Providers

    Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

        Non-Commercial Users

        Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns

    Registrars Stakeholder Group  

    Registries Stakeholder Group   <-  THAT’s the RySG!

So while most gNSO stakeholders are indeed “for-profit” orientated; it’s a completely different setup than the ccNSO. And the gTLD registries are just one amongst many stakeholders.

Alexander

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 16:11
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC

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 <http://www.internet.ee> 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <http://www.internet.ee> 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto: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:  <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> susan.payne at valideus.com 
D: +44 20 7421 8255 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208255> 
T: +44 20 7421 8299 <tel:%2B44%2020%207421%208299> 
M: +44 7971 661175 <tel:%2B44%207971%20661175> 

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 at icann.org>  [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange
Sent: 24 August 2016 08:24
To: Heather Forrest; Joke Braeken; ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>  <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 21:39
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> 

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter:  <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook:  <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

http://ccnso.icann.org 

From: Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> >
Date: Friday 19 August 2016 at 11:57
To: "ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> 

Follow @ccNSO on Twitter:  <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> https://twitter.com/ccNSO

Follow the ccNSO on Facebook:  <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/

http://ccnso.icann.org 

_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list
Ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto: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/d7874384/attachment-0001.html>