[ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Sun Aug 27 15:14:14 UTC 2017

I agree with Tijani, that the ALAC should send regional representatives
each with their own opinion.

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <
tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn> wrote:

> Bonjour Alan,
>
> I’m afraid I don’t share your approach.
>
> What you are proposing is to send to the WT a neutral (balanced) opinion.
> You even propose to have opinion balance rather than regional balance.
> This means that if we have more than a region with the same opinion, we
> have to take only one and take 2 or more from a region with various
> opinions. What would be the result????
> Regions much more represented than others for an issue about geographic
> names…..
>
> I believe we should act exactly as we did for the CCWG: select 5 members
> from the 5 regions, and each member expresses his opinion in the WT. The
> final report of the WT will be ratified by the Chartering organizations,
> and that’s where the opinion of the ALAC as a whole will be shaped.  (*with
> the understanding that we agree to the terms of reference, and that we are
> not bound by the outcomes until and unless we ratify them at the conclusion
> of WT5 work.*)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
> Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114 <+216%2098%20330%20114>
>             +216 52 385 114 <+216%2052%20385%20114>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
>
>
> Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a
> écrit :
>
> The GNSO PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has decided to initiate a
> Work Track on the use geographic names at the top level, and the ALAC,
> along with the GNSO, ccNSO and GAC, has been invited to participate.
>
> As a first step, co-leaders are being requested and as you know from
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html,
> the ALAC is seeking someone to take on this role on behalf of the ALAC.
>
> The co-leaders, once selected, will work with the PDP WG Co-Chairs to
> establish the further procedures and the full terms of reference will
> likely be established by the WT itself However, it is envisaged that this
> new Work Track will operate with procedures comparable to a CCWG. If this
> is indeed what happens, the Work Track, unlike most GNSO PDP efforts, may
> include:
>
> - Members formally appointed by the AC/SOs;
> - Participants;
> - A decision process wherein Members only may take part (used only if
> necessary)
> - The .
>
> The ALAC needs to decide how it will participate, and the criteria for
> selecting Members (presuming this is the path chosen).
>
> The first part, I think, is relatively simple. I believe the ALAC should
> agree to be a full participant with the understanding that we agree to the
> terms of reference, and that we are not bound by the outcomes until and
> unless we ratify them at the conclusion of WT5 work.
>
> The selection of Members (if there are any) is more complex. Normally, we
> are allotted five Members and I would expect that to be the case here. We
> typically solicit volunteers and the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee
> makes recommendations to the ALAC, with the expectation is that there be
> one candidate per region.
>
> This situation is more challenging in that the ALAC and At-Large may have
> a variety of positions ranging from:
>
> - National or local governments should have absolute control over the use
> of their names (or other geographic identifiers); to
> - We have many examples of the use of geographic names in existing domains
> and there is no evidence of harm, so we should allow a very liberal use of
> geographic names in the new TLDs.
> - In between, there are views that there should be a mechanism to
> arbitrate when there are different parties seeking a name, or a process
> like the Trademark Clearinghouse where parties can register their
> "interest" in a name.
>
> It is therefore really important to understand the variety of views and
> make sure that our delegation to the WT represents all of these.
>
> In order to do this, I think we need a discussion of what positions are
> held. This is NOT an opportunity to agree or disagree with positions
> presented, but to simply understand how views vary within At-Large.
>
> I would like to open the discussion on this list to start with, and once
> we have a good idea of ideas, to validate them with the wider At-Large
> Community.
>
> With this mail, I am soliciting input on three questions:
>
> 1. Do you agree with my proposal on the conditions for participating or if
> not, what do you propose instead?
>
> 2. Assuming we will be asked to appoint Members, should we try to balance
> their views to make sure the majority of our community has a voice on the
> WT? This *might* mean we end up balancing views and not have all five
> regions represented.
>
> 3. What are your views on how to address the use of geographic names in
> Top Level Domains?
>
> Alan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170827/ac72fbf7/attachment.html>