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

Mon Aug 29 09:01:21 UTC 2016

Dear Alexander,

Just a short comment

Money is not the problem here. The ICANN regulation and contract  is the
show stopper for us regarding .est. Estonian government has to have full
control over what kind of personal data is collected, how it is handled and
how to protect it and we as a tld operator need to have control over
registration and partner policy. So to but it bluntly the solution you are
fighting for is worse for us than current situation with total blockage as
this leaves hope for the result suitable for tld standing for a country. We
cannot use gtld for e-Estonia initiative without breaking the ICANN
contract.

I have not yet met a GAC member with such strong opinions against giving
governments full control over their country codes and names as TLD as you
describe. But if there are such I will meet and talk to them to get better
idea of the argumentaion because what you are saying goes against logic
from a government's perspective.

As there might be those in GAC that object against three letter cctld's
there are also those that object against lifting the ban all together. So
its a challenge any way you look at it.

Best Regards,

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

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> 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@
> 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
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <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
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160829/7f2f5b58/attachment.html>