[Ctn-crosscom] incendiary questions - cross-community session Country and other Geographic names Forum
Olga Cavalli
olgacavalli at gmail.com
Sun Jun 26 14:01:25 UTC 2016
Dear Susan,
this is the link to the document.
https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Working+Group+to+Examine+the+Protection+of+Geographic+Names+in+any+Future+Expansion+of+gTLDs?preview=/39944662/41944013/GAC%20Geo-names%20WG%20-%20Working%20Papers%20.pdf
It does include a summary of all the comments recieved and the best
practices WG developed after reviewing the comments from community.
Now the WG is focused on a document about "public interest" definition.
Best
Olga
2016-06-26 16:51 GMT+03:00 Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>:
> 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
>
> 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>:
>
> 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
>
> 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 21:10
> *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
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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
>
> 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 <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Bart Boswinkel
> *Sent:* 10 June 2016 18:22
> *To:* 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160626/08ef7e1b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ctn-crosscom
mailing list