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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Aug 27 16:41:47 UTC 2017

Tijani and others,

You are disagreeing with one small POSSIBLE 
consequence of what I suggested and I am not sure 
to what extent you are disagreeing with the main 
part, that we TRY to ensure that all major 
viewpoints held by At-Large people are represented.

It is fine to say that if we don't like the 
outcome, we will not ratify it, but just as in 
our reply to Rec 1 of the review, we say we are 
MUCH better off if we can effect the outcome so 
it is good, rather than just object afterwards, 
in this case, we need to ensure that our 
participants in the process represent the range of views.


At 27/08/2017 06:53 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.)
>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 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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 
>>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?
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170827/76814bf7/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list