[Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
crg at isoc-cr.org
Fri Aug 26 16:06:41 UTC 2016
Dear Timo,
first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take
a step back and recognise that
1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it
was their report that suggested create the present Working Group
together with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of
restrictive lists of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never
complete.
2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without
any conclusive reports and/or recommendations.
3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur
next call
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 26 Aug 2016, at 6:04, Timo Võhmar wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
More information about the Ctn-crosscom
mailing list