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

Sun Aug 27 15:24:13 UTC 2017

Me too, sounds like a feasible route to go. Ofcourse efforts should be made
to coordinate amongst the 5 and the entire AtLarge community.

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Aug 27, 2017 4:15 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/di
>> splay/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/di
>> splay/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/20170827/5880458e/attachment.html>