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

Tue Aug 30 07:56:46 UTC 2016

Hi Maxim,

So do you have an idea how to resolve the geoTLD issues?

Of course everyone that is invested in this issue has their own agenda and
generics and country codes are logically on opposite ends on this
discussion - one saying that country codes and names are what they are
regardless of length and the other one is saying that only two letters
deserve to stand for a country. The goal is to find some kind of a middle
ground - so that the strings would be available to register as gTLDs in the
next round but would be available as ccTLDs before that.

I join with you with proposal that the CWG could sketch down few policy
models in the final report to give an actual step forward for the next
group dealing with this issue.

Best Regards,

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

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Timo,
>
> I agree that GEOs were deployed with issues, but we should not mix local
> governments and big ones (latter have reps in GAC).
>
> In my opinion we have situation where both sides a biased (one is
> protecting status quo, and the other is trying to shift the focus point).
>
> And it looks like a conflict of interests (GNSO with desire to allow as
> much as possible and CCTLDs & GAC with desire to keep more that it is
> possible :)
>
> IMHO
> As a CWG we do not have power to rule this out, all we can it to produce
> clearly visible result (paper with options and outcomes), which will help
> with the next steps for the rest of the community.
>
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
>
> > On Aug 29, 2016, at 23:36, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar at internet.ee> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Maxim for your comment!
> >
> > I happen to share the opinion that the way geo tlds were delegated is
> not good - it gives an illusion of control to governments and puts the tld
> operator in unfair position in comparison to cc and gtlds. But let's not
> open this can right now. In my humble opinion keeping only the two separate
> delegation tracks - ccTLD and gTLD is all that is needed. Giving local
> governments a reason to choose whether to keep a country code, geo or
> country name under its control as cctld or giving it up to the wild as gTLD
> should be the problem to find an answer to.
> >
> > not for profit does not have to mean charity - in most cases these are
> self financed organisations that have no other means of income than domain
> registrations. not for profit means we do not charge more than we need to
> sustainably run the organisation.
> >
> > .com is history, today we have list of three letter country codes that
> are blocked for everyone and our goal was to find a solution that would
> enable to put these in use. All as ccTLDs or gTLD will probably not pass,
> the first round's geo TLD model is flawed at least in some minds and you
> seem to confirm that. Unfortunately we did not reach the goal.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Timo Võhmar
> > Head of development
> > Estonian Internet Foundation
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello Timo,
> >
> > As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between
> ccTLD and the rest of new gTLD world.
> >
> > Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money"
> without responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments)
> of the biggest cities
> > of our countries.
> >
> > P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for
> free.
> >
> > P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro
> Islands) and some more were delegated in the last round ...
> >
> > Sincerely Yours,
> >
> > Maxim Alzoba
> > Special projects manager,
> > International Relations Department,
> > FAITID
> >
> > m. +7 916 6761580
> > skype oldfrogger
> >
> > Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
> >
> > > On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar at internet.ee>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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/20160830/52dd0bb6/attachment.html>