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

Sun Aug 27 15:32:40 UTC 2017

I agree with Tijani, Maureen and Seun.  But I lilke Seun's idea of
coordinating what each RALO rep says - and Alan, would either a
webinar or some mechanism be possible so that everyone is aware of all
of the arguments?  The reps can then both represent regional views,
but in the larger context of the different views on the topic

Holly 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Seun Ojedeji" 
To:"Maureen Hilyard" 
Cc:"ALAC" , "Alan Greenberg" 
Sent:Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:24:13 +0100
Subject:Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent
Procedures

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"  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  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 52 385 114 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg  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-listsicann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html
[4], 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 [5]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [6]

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [7]
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[8]

_______________________________________________
 ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org [9]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [10]

 At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [11]
 ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[12]

_______________________________________________
 ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org [13]
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [14]

 At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [15]
 ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[16]

Links:
------
[1] mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com
[2] mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
[3] mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
[4]
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2017-August/010630.html
[5] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[6] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[7] http://www.atlarge.icann.org
[8]
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[9] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[10] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[11] http://www.atlarge.icann.org
[12]
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
[13] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[14] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
[15] http://www.atlarge.icann.org
[16]
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/20170828/203bbf7d/attachment.html>