[Ctn-crosscom] consolidated version of the Post-Helsinki CWG-UCTN Progress Report

Tue Sep 13 15:01:59 UTC 2016

Dear WG members,

a few remarks:

“…….while two-letter codes have a long-standing role in DNS policy and procedure originating with RFC 1591, ICANN had not consistently extended the same protections and definitions to three-letter codes.”

“Had not consistently” suggests that ICANN “had” – but “not consistently”. How, where and when has ICANN extended “protections” to 3 letter codes other than in the temporarily ineligibility provision of paragraph § 2.2.1.4.1 in the 2012 AGB? When others are reading this it looks like there is some kind of protection in place – just not very consistent. ICANN has not “protected” ISO 3166 III codes but merely made them unavailable in the 2012 round. And actually it wasn’t really “ICANN” – it was the GAC making dependent their agreement to the 2012 AGB on this provision – and ICANN followed due to avoid an extended discussion (namely the one we are having now here). Yes: “NIC” is “protected” – but NOT because it is a 3 letter code! It is simply protected and HAPPENS to be a 3 letter code in the same time. The notion of “ICANN had not consistently extended the same protections and definitions to three-letter codes” is (in my mind) misleading.

I disagree with the CWG recommendations!

We inside this CWG and those familiar with its mandate know that our task was to find a broad “one size fits it all” solution. But nobody out there is really familiar with the scope of our work. In the real world people know us as “the CWG that will find a solution to the treatment of territory and 3166 III code based strings for the next new gTLD round”. gNSO, GAC and others get constantly reminded: “Don’t work on these names – there is a CWG doing it for you”.

But is it? Obviously not. And it was never our scope. In an ideal case the results of our work had delivered something that could have been an “input” for the new PDP.  Who says that the soup of names described  in § 2.2.1.4.1 in the 2012 AGB (plus the 2 letter codes) need to be treated equally in all levels of the DNS? And who said that there needs to be some “harmonized framework” in the first place? Why, for what, who wants that? We seem to take for granted that such an animal must be found – and until it is found these names shall be off limits?

So at a BARE MINIMUM we should acknowledge that GAC and gNSO are currently awaiting a magic solution on how to treat names described  in § 2.2.1.4.1 in the 2012 AGB in the next round. And we should (in my opinion) state:

*        We never really looked very much into that matter – instead focused on our mandate which was completely independent from that question and had (if anything) only a loose overlap!

*        We have ZERO recommendations for that question – zero consent

*        All relevant stakeholders (namely GAC and gNSO) should stop waiting from input from this CWG – and start to find their own solutions as to how to treat names described  in § 2.2.1.4.1 in the 2012 AGB in the next round.

GAC and gNSO are tasked to find a solution as to how treat the 2012 ban. They waited forever for hints and suggestions from us. We have nothing to offer. Somebody has to make this VERY CLEAR. Not just in our recommendations but in direct communications with the chairs and co-chairs in GAC and gNSO (e.g. Thomas Schneider, Olga Cavalli, Jeff Neuman, Avri Doria, James Bladel……).

As for more CWG’s to find a “one size fits it all solution” that can be used for all kinds of procedures: Great idea. But given the “speed” of this CWG the solutions that might be created by such group most likely will NOT impact the next new gTLD round: We had a shot – we missed. So in my opinion we should make it very clear that other CWGs might be called into existence – but I see no relation to the next round PDP anymore. Important work – but wholly independent from the current new gTLD PDP.

All of this is my personal opinion – and I am keen on feedback: Maybe I have overseen important facts.

When and how are we going to deliver our recommendations?

Thanks,

Alexander

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Joke Braeken
Sent: Montag, 12. September 2016 19:15
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] consolidated version of the Post-Helsinki CWG-UCTN Progress Report

Dear co-chairs and working group members,

Based on the latest version commented on by Rosalía Morales (.cr), please find included in attachment a consolidated version of the Progress Report, which will be further discussed during the next WG-meeting on Monday 19 September at 21 UTC.

In this consolidated version, language improvements and modifications to the lay-out have been accepted.

Furthermore:

-        The language regarding the scope of the CWG was copied from the charter

-        ISO-list was replaced by ISO-standard

-        discussed plans within the GAC on the subject of 2-letter country/territory codes at the second level: removed from the main body, and included in a footnote (footnote 10)

-        removal duplicated paragraph. Last bullet, with examples that illustrate the outcome of inconsistencies in the framework

Section D, covering the recommendations, will be finalized after the discussion within the CWG during its call next Monday.

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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160913/5a0dc114/attachment.html>