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

Sun Aug 27 15:54:00 UTC 2017

I also agree with Tijani and following. It was Holly's best to consult the Rails. The history of .amazon and .patagonia give the reasons for this consultation.

In the case of .patagonia: when ICANN opens the subject to public comment, it had 1149 comments, the majority opposed to the granting to the private company. For this there were numerous movements in social networks, our own ALSs, and the governments of the countries involved, although these did not have the necessary force. The company withdrew its order.

Amazon I do not give details because it is very current. But I was struck by a publication of several organizations where he said that they defend us, they should first consult us. This statement was because they had the main foundations for not assigning the domain to the private company.

Regards

Alberto

De: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de h.raiche at internode.on.net
Enviado el: domingo, 27 de agosto de 2017 12:33 p.m.
Para: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>; Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
CC: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Discussion: WT5 of PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

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" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> >

To:

"Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> >

Cc:

"ALAC" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> >, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> >

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" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 52 385 114 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 27 août 2017 à 03:29, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-listsicann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> 

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://wwwatlarge.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 <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <https://atlarge-listsicann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> 

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://wwwatlarge.icann.org> 
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170827/bf077010/attachment.html>