[Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Susan Payne
susan.payne at valideus.com
Sun Jun 26 13:51:49 UTC 2016
Hi Olga, I hope you had a good flight. Please could you circulate the new version of the GAC WG’s proposal on geo names. Or a link if it is published on the GAC website?
Many thanks
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com]
Sent: 24 June 2016 21:25
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>
Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org>; ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Hi Susan,
sure Im in the airport now and will send it once arrived into Helsinki tomorrow.
Best
Olga
2016-06-24 15:07 GMT-03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>:
Dear Olga, as I said it was intended to be incendiary, but if the WG has addressed the public comments and produced a new version of its proposal I am very happy to be corrected. Would you mind sharing it as I must have missed it.
Many thanks
Susan
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
From: Olga Cavalli [mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli at gmail.com>]
Sent: 24 June 2016 21:10
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>>
Cc: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org<mailto:bart.boswinkel at icann.org>>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>>; Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken at icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken at icann.org>>; Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no>>; Paul Szyndler <paul.szyndler at auda.org.au<mailto:paul.szyndler at auda.org.au>>; Heather Forrest <Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au<mailto:Heather.Forrest at acu.edu.au>>; Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>; ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear Susan,
About your proposed "incendiary questions" , quoted:
"Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?"
This affirmation is not correct. All comments have been presented and adressed since the Icann Singapore meeting and after, meetings are open and since then no further proposal to the amalysis presented by our WG has been recieved.
So please be so kind to refrain your proposed "incendiary question" considering these facts.
Best regards
Olga
El 24 jun 2016, a las 2:26 p.m., Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>> escribió:
Dear co-chairs and staff.
I am not sure whether you would like suggestions of “incendiary questions” for the cross community forum session? I do have a couple, which could spark lively discussion:
Context is irrelevant – use of a personal name or a brand name, even if intended to identify the person or entity (eg Tata), should never be permitted if it matches a geographic term;
Trade marks serve no public interest benefit;
Is it a problem if 18 months after comments were submitted by the community in response to the proposal from the GAC’s working group on geographic names, those comments have not been addressed?
Does it matter that the CWG-UCTN, the Subsequent Procedures PDP and the GAC might all reach different conclusions on the treatment of geo names?
For the avoidance of doubt these are not necessarily my own views or those of my employer or clients – but intended to meet the “contentious ideas” criterion.
Looking forward to an interesting meeting in Helsinki.
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd
28-30 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN, United Kingdom
E: susan.payne at valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel
Sent: 10 June 2016 18:22
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Agenda 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC + note cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Dear all,
Please find included the draft agenda for the upcoming CCWG CTN call 13 June 2016, 20.00 UTC.
1. Welcome and roll-call
2. Discussion on outline of Country and other Geographic Names Forum
a. Purpose
b. Format
c. Topics
d. Communication & Outreach
e. Next Steps
3. AOB
4. Closure
Also included is a draft outline for the session in Helsinki. Discussion of this topic is the main agenda item.
Briefing country /territory / geographic names forum in Helsinki.
Please note the following
The forum is no longer running in parallel with the Right Protection Mechanism session. Following discussions, the latter has been moved to Monday afternoon.
- The session will move to the GAC room
- Chair of the GAC (and others) expressed a need to be informed about the session asap.
Goal/Purpose of the session
The topic / theme should be very high-level. Proposed title is:
"The eternal debate: country, territory and geographic names in the DNS"
Moderator/facilitators TBD
Use two moderators:
ccNSO person and GNSO person. For their role see format.
Note if the WG wants to go for two moderators, they need to be briefed properly and in time. This will need to start before the Helsinki meeting.
Chair of the session: TBD
Role of the chair: introduce the session, ensure timing etc. Summarize session at the end (action-items, main outcomes/conclusions, which would then feed into the work of the CCWG CTN
If the moderators will be from the ccNSO and GNSO, it is suggested that the chair will be from ALAC.
Format
The chair would set the scene with regard to all of the various initiatives (Use of Study group report). No speakers on each (like the GAC group or even our WG) as that makes it too "heavy".
After the high level is provided, the moderators take over and ask particular audience members (to be identified) to answer questions, and then invite the audience to share there views (The best analogy is the "Q&A" current affairs show in Australia - http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/).
It is also intended to use the ADOBE Room to send questions to the moderators
Topics to be covered
We intentionally use contentious ideas (like strawpeople) - "all of the groups of ICANN must harmonize their approach to geo names", "country names belong to countries", "three letter codes are just that, and no country has presumptive rights to them". The more incendiary, the better.
Second theme could be: “the need for a harmonized framework is overrated”. This would bring in SSAC, and others who have a concern about that the differences in policies: use different definitions, overlaps etc.
Associated to this, the moderators should be given plenty of examples that the former Study Group used and that DO relate to the WG - .com, .cym, .cs (to show dynamics of the ISO 3166-1 list)
The moderators should use a lot of audience voting and "temperature of the room" for example through the ADOBE voting tool or show of cards. Note, even a 1/3 positive, 1/3 negative and 1/3 unsure is still a good outcome, highlighting how divisive the issue is.
It should be ensured that the session is NOT only about progressing the specific agenda of the WG. It is OK if the debate is more general than the WG's charter (hence title of the session)
We need to formulate a "final message". We don’t know where the
conversation will go and we must not steer it. But there needs to be a clear "and now what?" at the end. This could be something like “Is there a need for a harmonized framework”.
Communication & Outreach
1. Discuss and inform the WG at the Monday call (co-chairs)
2. Who of the WG members will be present in Helsinki and attending the session?
3. Inform and invite community (in particular GAC). Prepare summary of session paper, after call Monday 13 June 20.00 UTC)
4. Post session summary on schedule
Next steps
1. Invite and inform session chair and moderators ( 14 June) ( co-chairs/staff)
2. Briefing session with moderators and chair (16 or 17 June) (co-chairs/staff)
3. Additional briefing in Helsinki (Monday morning, assuming moderators and chairs will be in Helsinki)
4. Identify “members in the audience” with particular view/interest (co-chairs/staff/ members of the WG
5. Invite “members of the audience” and explain format (staff on behalf of the co-chairs)
6. F-2-F meeting co-chairs with moderators and chair
_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list
Ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto: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/20160626/88ccd59c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ctn-crosscom
mailing list