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

Sat Aug 27 16:46:00 UTC 2016

Dear Timo,

I can resonate with your idea and concern; which I try to summarize:

*        .est operated by the .ee ccTLD operator should work identical to .ee! All the same rules and procedures and transaction commands.

*        You do not want to pay transaction fees to ICANN: For what? You don´t pay them for .ee, why for .est?

*        The data projection policy of the EU is SIGNIFICANT more restrict than those of the U.S.: You don’t want the gTLD ICANN WHOIS requirements

*        Much of the other policy framework like “reserved names” should be identical to the existing one of .ee – not some policy developed by other nations / stakeholders.

I get all that – and most in this group get it, too.

BUT!

I was at the Helsinki meeting, and spoke to a multitude of GAC members: Some of them are STEADFAST objecting the notion of the introduction of three letter ccTLDs. And I am running around and talk to GAC reps since 2005 (first to lobby for .berlin – which initially was seen as a “danger”; then to lobby for .gay: which a few nations found even more dangerous) and you can be rest assured: If a few powerful and vigilant GAC reps have put smth into their minds: You won’t get it out; especially not without showing up in person.

ICANN is sadly not about creating the BEST and MOST SENSEFUL solutions: It is about give and take and arrive at SOME solution.

There is currently a BAN of ISO 3166 Alpha 3 codes (and territory names) a TLD’s in the AGB. The gNSO works off the 2012 AGB. If the ban is not lifted – it just stays in there. If it stays in there you won’t get .est.  The ban has been introduced by the GAC. The GAC works not with majorities but rather only adopts policy only if NO ONE OBJECTS.  Right now a number of countries DO object the notion of three letter ccTLD’s. If we (the CW Group and or the gNSO) suggest to create these three letter cTLDs: All what happens is that the GAC doesn’t agree and the ban will stay.

The maximum the ccTLD operators can achieve would be an added letter of non-objection by the ccTD manager: So at least you can be rest assured that your Information Technology Ministry (or ministry for commerce, interior) won’t give away your three letter code against your will. You are in full control. All fine.

Alexander

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: Samstag, 27. August 2016 00:40
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org>
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC

Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!

I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree. 

I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD, gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense. 

I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation. So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

Head of development

Estonian Internet Foundation

www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org> > wrote:

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 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> 
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160827/5027e154/attachment.html>