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

Fri Aug 26 16:52:49 UTC 2016

Dear All,

Thank you for including me in this working group. I am looking forward to contributing to the discussion and views of ccTLDs.

As a new member to this WG and trying to catch up with the discussion, I share the concern of others in this thread related to the open participation of all stakeholders in the decision making process during the PDP. For example, according to Susan´s email:

¨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.  ¨. 

If the process works as mentioned by Susan above, I don´t see a formal and accountable representation of the ccNSO in this discussion. I strongly believe the ccNSO needs to contribute and be included formally in all future discussions. 

I would greatly appreciate if other members of this group could help me answer my concern of the formal representation of the ccNSO in the PDP process. 

Best,
Rosalía

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
> 
> Dear Timo, <>
>  
> The GAC placed the Country Name and ISO 3166 III ban into the AGB in the first place – so no worries: They will make themselves heard. They expressed a very clear desire in Helsinki that somebody should please come up with a policy recommendation: THEN they mull about it. GAC is not known well as CREATING policy: it mostly comments on recommendations. 
> 
> The ccTLDs. They could have spoken up IN THIS WG. They didn’t. If I would put myself in their shoes and if I were of protectionist composition I would make a simple demand: The prerequisite to the delegation of a ISO 3166 III code elements or a Country & Territory name (or their short form) would be like with all other geo names the “letter of non-objection” of the relevant government institution; PLUS the absolution of the national ccTLD manager! This way to “mitigate” your “risk” (which is selling fewer ccTLD registrations) you can simply require the applicant to employ YOUR services – or put them at risk of getting your absolution. And if you were say “.tr” and Turkey wanted “.turkey”: Wouldn’t the ccTLD operator the almost natural choice as gTLD operator?
>  
> I know that you personally would prefer to treat .est as “ccTLD” – so you can run it like “.ee”. This is just not going to happen – and I spoke with a number of GAC members who are ON THE ROPES to prevent that: ccTLDs are two letter codes – and basta. If we now introduce SOME three letter codes as ccTLDs – while others are gTLDs – the chaos would be perfect. The Internet user knows all “.ll” are ccTLDs – and everything else is a gTLD.
> 
> All my personal opinions, but I am in this circus since 2005 and co-founded a geo based gTLD (and create the applicant for another one right now) so I thought about this for a long time.
>  
> Alexander
>  
>  
>  
> From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee>] 
> Sent: Freitag, 26. August 2016 17:15
> To: alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>
> Cc: 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
>  
> I am sorry for drawing equal sign between gNSO and gTLD operators. Thank you Alexander for correcting me!
>  
> But my point still remains gNSO is not balanced in this matter and, as you admitted, is profit oriented. It is lacking the voice of ccNSO and GAG that have direct issues with releasing country names and country codes for commercial use. 
> Sorry for repeating my self so much but CWG.
>  
> Best Regards,
> 
> Timo Võhmar
> Head of development
> Estonian Internet Foundation
> www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee/>
>  
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>> wrote:
>> 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> [mailto: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 <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
>> Cc: 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 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: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto: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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
>>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
>> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
>  
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
> Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4647/12883 - Release Date: 08/26/16
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160826/69c6b545/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NIC_FirmaDigital-01-Rosalia.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7231 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160826/69c6b545/NIC_FirmaDigital-01-Rosalia-0001.png>