[Ctn-crosscom] agenda CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.

Tue Aug 30 12:51:50 UTC 2016

Dear Alexander,

my apologies for missing last nights call (jet Lag)

My personal reaction to your concise nutshell: the GNSO is “NOT” 
assuming that this CWG with the ccNSO is producing “policy”. You can 
bet on that! We may be looking for a general framework to be considered 
for formal policy process (and not finding it).

Should I read the whole document?

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 30 Aug 2016, at 14:09, Alexander Schubert wrote:

> Dear working group,
>
>
>
> Please allow me an attempt to “de-clutter” the current discussion. 
> For those who don’t want to read my monologue; here the essence in  
> a nutshell:
>
>
>
> gNSO and GAC assume that we are developing policy for the delegation 
> of country names / ISO 3166 III code based  new gTLDs. But I think 
> this WG has a complete DIFFERENT focus and works on something much 
> broader – and doesn’t find a solution for that quite narrow 
> defined and specific task: it is not trying to create policy for the 
> delegation of country names / ISO 3166 III code based  new gTLDs.
>
>
>
> No need to read further – the remainder is just a lengthy 
> explanation of the nutshell:
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me go back to the 2012 new gTLD round: Some applicants (among them 
> .berlin)  aggressively lobbied ICANN, gNSO and the GAC to allow for 
> geo new gTLDs. Eventually rules to delegate geo-TLDs were established 
> – but the GAC wanted some kind of trade off – some kind of 
> “protected land”; a line in the sand: “Till here and no 
> further”.
>
> That line was manifested in the 2012 AGB section “2.2.1.4.1 
> Treatment of Country or Territory Names”. It was based on a GAC 
> advice! GAC is an important ICANN stakeholder and we should work 
> closely with them – but all it can do is ADVISING. They did – and 
> in order to not delay the new gTLD process even FURTHER the gNSO 
> declared its willingness to exclude these couple of thousand strings 
> from the 2012 round: Country and territory names (and their short 
> forms, and permutations, and transpositions <- google the word), ISO 
> 3166 III code elements and their permutations.
>
> I have to admit: I am late to the ccNSO policy development around this 
> issue: Probably because I am not affiliated with a ccTLD and because I 
> just wasn’t even aware that starting already in 2011 the ccNSO tried 
> to establish some policy framework around “the way in which the 
> names of countries and territories are currently used within ICANN, be 
> it in the form of policies, guidelines and/or procedures”.
>
> Fast forward to 2016:
>
> 99% of the strings submitted in 2012 are resolved (delegated, 
> withdrawn, in delegation, etc.). The next round is projected for about 
> 2020. The ICANN community is engaged in the new PDP process to amend 
> the 2012 AGB.
> At the gNSO and the GAC meetings in Helsinki the country names / ISO 
> 3166 III issue was always ignored and reference was made to THIS WG! 
> Obviously most stakeholders our there are steadfast convinced that 
> THIS WG is designed or at least enabled to create a policy suggestion 
> for the designation of country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs. And 
> I honestly thought that THAT is the prime task of this WG – and 
> apologize for only having understood yesterday that the prime task is 
> of complete DIFFERENT nature.
>
>
>
> So here my suggestions:
>
> *        In order to not further delay the important discussion and 
> work on the task of developing a policy regarding the designation of 
> country names / ISO 3166 III as new gTLDs being executed by the gNSO: 
> let’s simply tell them that we are not necessarily focusing on such 
> solution – and with or without focus are far from any tangible 
> results.
>
> *        The task of this WG is an important one – and I wish we 
> find a solution: But I honestly see only a lose “overlapping” with 
> the gNSO’s task to amend the 2012 AGB in a way that defines how to 
> apply for these strings.
>
>
>
> GAC wanted a “line in the sand” – and got it temporarily in 
> 2012. GAC suggested the ccNSO should develop policies starting in 2011 
> – it’s been 5 years and no policy in sight. I think it is time to 
> let the other stakeholders know that they are waiting for smth that we 
> won’t be able to deliver – and even aren’t really tasked to do 
> so.
>
>
>
> Again: gNSO and GAC demand clear policy on how country names / ISO 
> 3166 III codes would be delegated as gTLDs. But we aren’t even 
> discussing that point: Neither in Helsinki (where we haven’t even 
> met) nor in the mailing list.
>
> I am afraid that by the Hyderabad meeting this WG will simply declare 
> that “no solution was found” – WITHOUT specifying what the 
> “magical solution” tried to: The WG knows that they are discussing 
> some broad “unified approach” of the “general usage” of 
> country names in the ICANN community. But those who are waiting for 
> our results assume that we are actively engaged in policy development 
> to solve the utterly simply problem on how to delegate country names / 
> ISO 3166 III code based gTLDs. So if we say “we couldn’t find a 
> solution” they assume there is no feasible way to delegate these 
> strings.
>
> If I am completely mistaken: Please just tell me. Otherwise I think it 
> is time to let all ‘next round new gTLD PDP constituents’ know 
> that they are waiting for a miracle that is just not going to happen. 
> And yes: I understand that there was an expectation that the result of 
> the work of this group could be a valuable input for the gNSO task to 
> find policies how to delegate country based strings – I just don’t 
> see it happening. Not the fault of this group or its participants – 
> just a mismatch of focuses – and wrong expectations of gNSO and GAC.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken
> Sent: Montag, 29. August 2016 12:20
> To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> Cc: 'gnso-secs at icann.org' <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] agenda CWG-UCTN call taking place on Monday, 
> 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the agenda for the CWG-UCTN call taking place on 
> Monday, 29 August 2016 at 2100 UTC.
>
> 14:00 PDT, 17:00 EDT, 22:00 London, 23:00 CEST, (Tuesday) 05:00 
> Beijing, (Tuesday) 07:00 Sydney
>
> for other places see:  <http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8> 
> http://tinyurl.com/hhb37c8
>
>
>
> AGENDA
>
>
>
> 1.      Welcome
>
> 2.      Discussion strawman paper post-Helsinki
>
> 3.      Next call
>
> 4.      AOB
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Joke Braeken
>
> ccNSO Policy Advisor
>
>  <mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom